REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Statement of ClaimREDDY ICE: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities SuitREDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Suit in OntarioREDBOX AUTOMATED: Change of Class Action Lawyers ApprovedRESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Part of Class Action Verdict Up for Trial

24 HOUR FITNESS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement-------------------------------------------------------A lawsuit that commenced on October 2, 2006 alleged that 24 HourFitness, the nation's largest privately owned fitness centerchain, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganizationsAct, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and engaged in unfair andfraudulent business practices, as well as other violations ofCalifornia's consumer protection statutes in charging monthlymembership dues by unauthorized electronic funds transfer aftermembers provided notice of cancellation of their memberships.24 Hour Fitness asserted that the class members had authorized thecharges and denied any wrongdoing. The Court made nodetermination that 24 Hour Fitness had done anything wrong.

After 4 years of hard fought litigation, United States DistrictCourt Judge A. Howard Matz approved a class action settlementagreement that provided a $20 monetary reimbursement or a 3-monthall-access membership certificate, valued between $150-$200, tojust over 1.53 million class members nationwide. In Friedman v.24 Hour Fitness, plaintiffs alleged fees had been deducted fromtheir bank or credit card accounts after giving 24 Hour Fitnessnotice that they were canceling their gym memberships.

Following protracted settlement negotiations, both sides enteredinto a settlement agreement that provided valuable benefits to thesettlement class and puts a complete stop to the practice goingforward. Melissa Harnett, co-lead counsel from Wasserman, Comden,Casselman & Esensten, stated, "It speaks volumes of theprofessionalism involved from all sides that we were able toestablish an agreement that reimburses approximately 80% of anaverage class member's actual damages for the charges at issue."

Jeffrey Keller, co-lead counsel from Keller Grover, LLP, alsostated, "We are very proud of the results of this settlementbecause it is bound to bring change to the whole health clubindustry. We secured not only the benefit for those peoplesubject to these charges in the past but also the commitment ofthe largest privately owned fitness center chain in the country tostop this practice forever. This case is a big win for all gymusers and not just the former members of 24 Hour Fitness in theclass."

In approving the settlement, valued at over $295 million, whichincludes the value of the 3-month all-access membershipcertificates and the long-term value of stopping the practicegoing forward, Judge Matz noted that class counsel were "stellarin [their] representation of the class" in what amounted to a verychallenging case that involved "as much, if not more, time andeffort and concern and rulings than any class action I canrecall."

Regarding the settlement, 24 Hour Fitness states that: "24 HourFitness values its members and we strive to offer the best fitnessexperience in the industry. We are responsive to our members'concerns and we have settled this case so we can continue to focuson our overall goal of helping people make fitness a way of life."

About Wasserman Comden

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP is a full service lawfirm with three offices in Southern California, and affiliatedoffices in China and Israel. The firm represents a sophisticatedarray of clients in myriad industries in matters related to realestate, intellectual property, labor and employment andinternational business. With a top-ranked litigation department,the firm handles all aspects of complex litigation in areasrelated to public construction and natural condition liabilitymatters, business litigation, consumer class action litigation andalso represents property owners and businesses in regulatorytakings and complex government liability disputes.

About Keller Grover

Keller Grover, LLP is a consumer protection, antitrust and wageand hour law firm based in Northern California with a winningtrack record and a strong reputation for vigorously protecting therights of consumers and employees nationwide.

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Continues to Defend Washington Securities Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Ambassadors Group, Inc., related in its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2010, that it has continues to defendallegations asserted in a securities class action.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against theCompany and certain of its executive officers on behalf of allpersons or entities who purchased the Company's common stockbetween February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

On March 11, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the classaction.

On June 2, 2010, the Court issued an order denying the Defendants'motion.

The current amended complaint, alleges that the Defendantsviolated federal securities laws by making untrue statements ofmaterial fact and omitting to state material facts, therebyartificially inflating the price of the Ambassadors Group CommonStock.

The Company said it has reviewed the amended complaint and denythe allegations contained in it.

The class action is currently in discovery.

The Company noted that it has tendered its defense and indemnityunder applicable insurance coverage and defense counsel inSeattle, Washington has been retained to represent it.

The Company cannot estimate the possible loss with respect to theclass action, if any, at this time. Actual cost to resolve theclass action will depend on many factors like the outcome ofmediation, pre-trial motions, trial and any appeals.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit and anyalleged claims for damages.

ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces Securities Suit Commenced by J. Wolfe------------------------------------------------------------AspenBio Pharma, Inc., was sued by John Wolfe in a securitiesclass litigation in a California court, the Company revealed inits November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The federal securities class action was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court in the Central District of California on behalf ofall persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stockof AspenBio Pharma, Inc., during the period between February 22,2007, and July 19, 2010, inclusive. The defendants purport toinclude certain officers and directors of the Company during suchperiod.

The complaint includes allegations of violations of Section 10(b)and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Actagainst the individual defendants related to the Company's blood-based appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore.

The Company and the individual defendants are evaluating thecomplaint, and believe that the allegations in the complaint arewithout merit.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims underthe complaint.

AUSTRALIA: Pan Pharma Class Action Settled for $50 Million----------------------------------------------------------Ellie Harvey, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports asettlement, believed to be more than $50 million, has been reachedin the Pan Pharmaceuticals class action against the federalgovernment.

The settlement, announced Tuesday, brings to a close a string oflegal suits since 2003, and is belated vindication for thecompany's founder, Jim Selim, who died earlier this year after astroke and battle with leukaemia.

Mr. Selim had been giving evidence in the Federal Court in themonths before his death. Terms of settlement are confidential.

In 2003, Pan boasted "the largest product offering of its kind inthe world", with 4500 formulations of tablets, gels, liquids,creams and powders on offer, when it became the subject of a hugeproduct recall.

In April that year the Therapeutic Goods Administration suspendedPan's manufacturing license and recalled everything it hadmanufactured in the past year. Its investigation into Pan wassparked by reports the company's Travacalm product was causinghallucinations in some people. The company collapsed withinmonths.

In 2008 Mr. Selim received a $50 million settlement from thefederal government.

About 165 of Pan's customers, creditors and sponsors joined aclass action, led by PharmaCare, seeking their own payments fromthe government and the TGA, saying they were left $120 million outof pocket by the action taken by authorities. Three othercompanies ran their own cases alongside it.

The litigation funder, IMF, said if the settlement was approved bythe court they would receive $24 million which would generate aprofit after overheads but before tax of $17 million.

Litigation funders generally receive about one-third of proceedsof settlement, making the settlement in favor of the class actionmore than $50 million.

"Any settlement is a compromise from all parties concerned," saidthe executive director of IMF, John Walker.

Pan's associates had accused the authorities of negligence andmisfeasance of public office and some are claiming for a loss ofshare value, which lawyers for the TGA said there was no legalauthority for.

Mr. Walker hoped an application for approval would be before thecourt before year's end.

AUSTRALIA: Tarcutta Residents Mull Class Action Over Flooding-------------------------------------------------------------ABC Riverina NWS reports that the owners of at least sevenproperties in Tarcutta are currently counting the costs of theOctober flooding so they can begin a class action against theRoads and Traffic Authority.

A property owner at Tarcutta said the victims of the flood onOctober 15 are currently gathering together builder's quotes andtheir individual assessments of damage.

Litigation specialists Slater and Gordon has asked for theassessments for a class action that relates to new duplicationwork on the Hume Highway.

The property owners blame the six-meter high bypass for inundatingtheir properties.

The property owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, said localresidents repeatedly warned the RTA of flooding risks if itmounded soil on the flood plain.

The owner said damage has ranged from shifting foundations todamaged equipment.

COMTECH TELECOM: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed by Plaintiffs--------------------------------------------------------------Comtech Telecommunications Corp. on Tuesday disclosed thatplaintiffs Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement Systemand James Lawing, by and through Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLPas their counsel, have filed a motion with the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of New York to voluntarilydismiss, with prejudice, their July 2009 securities fraud lawsuitfiled against Comtech, its Chief Executive Officer and its ChiefFinancial Officer. The plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismissthe case after conducting their own investigation and apparentlyconcluding that there was no merit to maintaining the class actionlawsuit.

Mr. Kornberg stated, "Although we were disappointed that thislawsuit was filed in the first place, we are pleased that theplaintiffs have apparently agreed with our position that this casewas without merit."

Separately, the Company also announced that it has been dismissed,without prejudice, as a defendant in a putative stockholder classaction complaint that was filed by a stockholder of CPIInternational, Inc., against CPI, its directors and the Company inconnection with the Company's proposed merger with CPI which wasterminated in September 2010. That lawsuit asserted claimsalleging, among other things, that each member of CPI's board ofdirectors breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to the termsof the proposed merger and by failing to provide stockholders withallegedly material information related to the proposed merger, andthat we aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedlycommitted by the members of CPI's board of directors. InSeptember 2010, Comtech announced the termination of the mergeragreement with CPI, that it received a gross termination fee of$15.0 million from CPI, and Comtech and CPI exchanged mutualgeneral releases related to the terminated transaction.

Comtech Telecommunications Corp. designs, develops, produces andmarkets innovative products, systems and services for advancedcommunications solutions. The Company believes many of itssolutions play a vital role in providing or enhancingcommunication capabilities when terrestrial communicationsinfrastructure is unavailable, inefficient or too expensive. TheCompany conducts business through three complementary segments:telecommunications transmission, mobile data communications and RFmicrowave amplifiers. The Company sells products to a diversecustomer base in the global commercial and governmentcommunications markets. The Company believes it is a marketleader in the market segments that it serves.

COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Writ of Appeal Pending in La. Supreme Court-----------------------------------------------------------------A writ of appeal filed by First Health Group Corp., a subsidiaryof Coventry Health Care Inc., in relation to a class actionlawsuit is pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court, according toCoventry Health Care's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010.

Four providers who have contracts with FHGC filed a state courtclass action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging thatFHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "Act"),which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider networkcontract to give a one time notice 30 days before that payor usesthe discounted rate in the preferred provider network contract topay the provider for services rendered to a member insured underthat payor's health benefit plan. These provider plaintiffs allegethat the Act applies to medical bills for treatment rendered toinjured workers and that the Act requires point of service writtennotice in the form of a benefit identification card. If a payor isfound to have violated the Act's notice provision, the court mayassess up to $2,000 in damages for each instance when the providerwas not given proper notice that a discounted rate would be usedto pay for the services rendered. In response to the state courtclass action, FHGC and certain payors filed a suit in federalcourt against the same four provider plaintiffs in the state courtclass action seeking a declaratory judgment that FHGC's contractsare valid and enforceable, that its contracts are not subject tothe Act since that Act does not apply to medical services renderedto injured workers and that FHGC is exempt from the noticerequirements of the Act because it has contracted directly witheach provider in its network. The federal district court ruled infavor of FHGC and declared that its contracts are not subject tothe Act, that FHGC was exempt from the Act's notice provisionbecause it contracted directly with the providers, and that FHGC'scontracts were valid and enforceable, i.e., the four providerplaintiffs were required to accept the discounted rate inaccordance with the terms of their written contracts with FHGC.

Despite the federal court's decision, the provider plaintiffscontinued to pursue their state court class action against FHGCand filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages of$2,000 for each provider visit where the provider was not given abenefit identification card at the time the service was performed.In response to the motion for partial summary judgment filed inthe state court action, FHGC obtained an order from the federalcourt which enjoined, barred and prevented any of the fourprovider plaintiffs or their counsel from pursuing any claimagainst FHGC before any court or tribunal arising under the Act.Despite the issuance of this federal court injunction, theprovider plaintiffs and their counsel pursued their motion forpartial summary judgment in the state court action. Before thestate court held a hearing on the motion for partial summaryjudgment, FHGC moved to decertify the class on the basis that thefour named provider plaintiffs had been enjoined by the federalcourt from pursuing their claims against FHGC. The state courtdenied the motion to decertify the class but did enter an orderpermitting FHGC to file an immediate appeal of the state court'sdenial of the motion. Even though FHGC had filed its appeal andthere were no class representatives since all four namedplaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their claims againstFHGC, the state court held a hearing and granted the plaintiffs'motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted themotion despite the fact that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction dueto the appeal filed by FHGC challenging the denial of its motionto decertify the class; (2) there were no named classrepresentatives because all four named plaintiffs had beenenjoined from pursuing their claims against FHGC; (3) none of theproviders in the class ever submitted a claim for payment to FHGCand therefore FHGC never made any discounted payments to any ofthe providers in the class in the absence of notice; (4) FHGC hascontracted directly with every provider in the class andtherefore, under the Act's express language, FHGC was exempt fromgiving notice under the Act; and (5) the claims of the providerplaintiffs are time barred. The amount of the partial judgment wasfor $262 million. Class counsel will likely claim prejudgmentinterest and attorneys' fees in addition to the $262 millionjudgment plus post judgment interest. FHGC appealed both thepartial summary judgment order and the denial of classdecertification order to the state's intermediate appellate court.Both appeals were denied by the intermediate appellate court.FHGC has filed an application for a writ of appeal with theLouisiana Supreme Court with respect to the class decertificationorder and the partial summary judgment order. The decision togrant or deny the application for a writ of appeal is at thediscretion of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Both applications arestill pending before the Louisiana Supreme Court. FHGC also fileda motion with the federal court to enforce the federal court'sprior judgments and for sanctions against the provider plaintiffsfor violating those judgments which barred and enjoined them frompursuing their claims against FHGC in the state courts. Thatmotion also sought to enjoin the state courts from proceeding inorder to protect and effectuate the federal court's judgments.FHGC's motion was denied by the federal court.

As a result of the Louisiana appellate court's decision on July 1,2010 to affirm the state trial court's summary judgment order, theCompany recorded a $278 million pre-tax charge to earnings duringthe second quarter of 2010. This amount represents the $262million judgment amount plus post judgment interest and isincluded in "accounts payable and other accrued liabilities" inthe accompanying balance sheets. The Company has accrued forlegal fees expected to be incurred related to this case as well aspost judgment interest subsequent to the second quarter charge,which are included in "accounts payable and other accruedliabilities" in the accompanying balance sheets.

In a related matter, FHGC has filed another lawsuit in Louisianafederal district court against 85 Louisiana providers seeking adeclaratory judgment that its contracts are valid and enforceable,that its contracts are not subject to the Act because itscontracts pertain to payment for services rendered to injuredworkers, and FHGC is exempt from the notice provision of the Actbecause it has contracted directly with the providers. Thislawsuit is assigned to the same federal district court judge whoissued the decision and injunction in the lawsuit filed by FHGCagainst the four provider plaintiffs in the state court action.

COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Maryland-------------------------------------------------------------Coventry Health Care Inc. continues to defend itself against anamended complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Maryland, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Sept. 3, 2009, a shareholder, who owns less than 5,000 shares,filed a putative securities class action against the company andthree of its current and former officers in the federal districtcourt of Maryland.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three othershareholders or investor groups filed motions with the court forappointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of leadand liaison counsel. By agreement, the four shareholderssubmitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of leadplaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.

The court has approved the stipulation and ordered the leadplaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint by May 21,2010. The amended complaint has been filed.

The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in thelawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Companybelieves this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect onits financial position or results of operations.

COVENTRY HEALTH: Still Defends Consolidated ERISA-Violations Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Coventry Health Care, Inc., continues to defend itself against aconsolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Nov. 5,2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Oct. 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in theCoventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putativeERISA class action lawsuit against the company and several of itscurrent and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S.District Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary dutiesunder ERISA by offering and maintaining company stock in the Planafter it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedlyfailing to provide complete and accurate information about thecompany's financial condition to plan participants in SEC filingsand public statements.

Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed inthe same court and were consolidated on Dec. 9, 2009.

As ordered by the court, the plaintiffs have filed a consolidatedamended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegationsin the consolidated complaint. Although it cannot predict theoutcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have amaterial adverse effect on its financial position or results ofoperations.

CVS CAREMARK: Sued for Requiring Employees to Work Off-The-Clock----------------------------------------------------------------Theodore Khnanisho, individually and on behalf of others similarlysituated v. CVS Caremark, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-49900 (Ill.Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 19, 2010), seeks to recover fromdefendants unpaid wages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees, andcosts, pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the IllinoisWage Payment and Collection Act. Mr. Khnanisho says the pharmacyand retail products and services provider does not pay him and theClass he represents for the work they perform when they drive fromone CVS store to another CVS store in the same workday to performsecurity guard duties.

Mr. Khnanisho is employed as a loss prevention agent/securityguard for the defendants.

DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Faces New Class Action Over Hip Implants-----------------------------------------------------------Matt Smith, writing for The Mercury, reports dodgy hipreplacements described as one of the biggest medical stuff-ups inAustralian history are at the center of a new class action.

The artificial hip implants made by Depuy Orthropedics asubsidiary of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson have afailure rate of one in eight, requiring them to be replaced withinfive years.

Berriedale pensioner Marlene Burles has joined the class actionagainst the manufacturer of two models of prosthetics hips whichwere recalled in August.

Ms. Burles said she was prompted to join the class action afterreading about it in the Mercury.

"I had a hip replacement four years ago in December and it hasgiven me hell ever since," she said.

"I had problems with pain, aching, it moves and it was just adisaster."

Ms. Burles said she is on a three-month waiting list for anotherhip replacement but red tape could mean she will have to wait evenlonger.

"The specialists are waiting on a final decision from the companyand Depuy's insurers, so when that will be goodness knows,"Ms. Burles said.

"But I can't go much longer with all the pain and agony."

Brisbane law firm Shine Lawyers is helping Ms. Burles and othersfrom around the country as part of a group action being brought inthe US.

Shine solicitor Rebecca Jancauskas said about 100 Australians hadcontacted the firm about the class action.

It is estimated 5000 Australians were fitted with the hips.

Ms. Jancauskas said it was a misconception that only older peoplewould be affected by the recall.

Australians who have contacted Shine Lawyers have ranged in agefrom their 30s to their 80s, she said.

DORCHESTER MINERALS: Certification of Gas Use Suit Remains Pending------------------------------------------------------------------A motion for class certification of a lawsuit related to naturalgas use asserted against Dorchester Minerals, L.P.'s operatingpartnership, Dorchester Minerals Operating LP, remains pending,the Company noted in its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called RuralResidents for Natural Gas Rights sued Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,along with several other operators in Texas County, Oklahoma,regarding the use of natural gas from the wells in residences.

Dorchester Minerals Operating LP, the operating partnership, nowowns and operates the properties formerly owned by DorchesterHugoton. Those properties contribute a major portion of the netprofits overriding royalty interest or NPI amounts paid to theCompany.

On April 9, 2007, plaintiffs, for immaterial costs, dismissed withprejudice all claims against the operating partnership regardingsuch residential gas use.

On October 4, 2004, the plaintiffs filed severed claims againstthe operating partnership regarding royalty underpayments, whichthe Texas County District Court subsequently dismissed with agrant of time to replead.

On January 27, 2006, one of the original plaintiffs again sued theoperating partnership for underpayment of royalty, seeking classaction certification.

On October 1, 2007, the Texas County District Court granted theoperating partnership's motion for summary judgment finding noroyalty underpayments.

Subsequently, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion forreconsideration, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 31, 2010, the appeal decision reversed and remanded tothe Texas County District Court to resolve material issues offact.

A hearing regarding the requested class action certification isset for late May 2011.

No court hearing has been scheduled on the merits. An adversedecision could reduce amounts the Company receive from the NPIs.

GE RETAIL: E*Trade Removes "Baker" Complaint to N.D. Calif.-----------------------------------------------------------Robert Baker, individually and on behalf of others similarlysiutated v. GE Retail Sales Finance, Inc., dba GEMB Lending, Inc.;E*Trade Financial Corporation dba E*Trade Financial; CCB CreditServices, Inc., Case No. CGC-10-504533 (Calif. Super. Ct., SanFrancisco Cty.), was filed on October 12, 2010. The Plaintiffbrought claims against the defendants for violations of the UnfairCompetition Law, the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act,and other applicable laws. Mr. Baker says the defendants failedto provide him with the statutorily-mandated notice of his legalrights and obligations following defendants' repossession of hismotor vehicle under a conditional sales contract, thus wrongfullydepriving him of his right to reinstate or redeem his conditionalsales contract after repossession. Further, Mr. Baker relatesthat defendants also collected, or sought to collect, a deficiencyfrom him for which he is not liable, sought and obtaineddeficiency judgments, and falsely reported borrowers' deficiencybalances to credit reporting agencies as past due debts.

GEMB is engaged in the business of providing financing topurchasers of automobiles, and in debt collection on thoseaccounts. E*Trade is in the business of purchasing debt accountsand collecting on the debt

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class ActionFairness Act of 2005, on November 19, 2010, E*Trade, removed thelawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerkassigned Case No. 10-cv-05261 to the proceeding.

This recall involves involves 10 inch metallic silver and goldtaper candles. The price "$1.99" and the UPC code 609032492687 or609032492694 are printed on the candles' plastic wrapping.Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and soldthrough Yankee Candle stores nationwide from October 2010 throughNovember 2010 for about $2.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled candles andreturn them to any Yankee Candle store or contact General Wax andCandle for a full refund. For additional information, contactGeneral Wax and Candle at (800) 543-0642 between 9:00 a.m. and5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit thefirm's Web site at http://www.generalwaxrefund.com/

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action for Scanning Gmail Accounts----------------------------------------------------------Michelle Massey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports aTexarkana resident has filed a class action lawsuit against Googlethat claims the company violated privacy laws by scanning Gmailaccounts in order to sell and place advertisements on accountholder's user screens.

Keith Dunbar, individually and as representative on behalf ofall similar situated persons, filed suit against Google Inc. onNov. 17 in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.

The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act of 1986 by scanning the content of allGmail from any sender and using the information to sell and placeadvertisements.

According to court documents, Google has admitted that itintercepts and scans all incoming emails of Gmail account holders,including those from non-consenting, non-Gmail account holders.

"As result of Google's actions in intercepting non-Gmail accountholders' emails, Google obtains a monetary benefit without consentof the Class members and without compensation to them," thelawsuit states.

Within its policies, Google states that there is an expectation ofprivacy between an email sender and recipients and acknowledgesthat privacy is compromised if personal information or privateemail content is shared with anyone other than the sender and theintended recipients.

According to the complaint, Google does not consider that it isviolating the privacy act because "it chooses not to consideritself as one of the parties other than the sender and intendedrecipient."

"Google scans the text of Gmail messages in order to filter spamand detect viruses, just as all major webmail services do,"according to part of Google's policies quoted in the lawsuit.

The policy continues by stating Google believes showing relevantadvertising offers more value and users will see text ads andlinks to related pages that are related to their messages.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction to stopGoogle's violations and for an award of actual damages,disgorgement of profits, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

The proposed class is represented by Sean F. Rommel and James C.Wyly of Wyly Rommel in Texarkana, Chris Travis and Drake Mann ofGill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman in Little Rock, Ark., and M. ChadTrammel of The Trammell Law Firm in Texarkana, Ark.

Ms. Marshall and Ms. Ramirez declared they would proceed to trialas individuals, and H&R Block moved for summary judgment.

Judge Reagan set trial, but it won't happen.

He canceled all settings and denied all pending motions as moot.

ILLINOIS: Judge Certifies Class in Healthcare Funding Suit----------------------------------------------------------Joseph Shapiro, writing for NPR, reports a U.S. District Courtjudge in Illinois has certified a class action lawsuit on behalfof eight people with severe disabilities who have either aged-outof a medical program for children or who are in danger of soonreaching the age cut off.

Among those included in the suit is Olivia Welter, an Illinoiswoman who turned 21 on Nov. 9 and as a result faces losing thelevel of state-funded care that her parents say has kept herhealthy and alive.

The decision by Judge William Hibbler of the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois to agree to the request ofthe Welters and other families to be included in a class actionsuit strengthens the families' attempts to force the state ofIllinois to continue the care to their sons and daughters. Themembers of the class are suing the Illinois Department ofHealthcare and Family Services.

"It means there are many voices, not just one, or one family,"says John Welter, Olivia's father. "And because of the interestof so many people across the country, it could have literallynational impact. Having it certified as a class action law suitmeans the guarantees and protections that might come with winningthis might be very broad and very enduring and very protective ofa lot of very vulnerable people. That's our big hope and ourexcitement."

Just weeks ago, the Welters thought Olivia's nurses would walk outthe door when she turned 21. But in late October, the familyjoined a lawsuit filed by the family of another disabled man whohad lost services, William Hampe. The state of Illinois thenagreed that it would continue the level of services that Oliviahad been receiving while the case goes through the courts.

The U.S. Department of Justice has taken a stand in the case.Earlier this summer, it asked to be included as a party ofinterest, on behalf of the disabled plaintiffs. The lawsuitargues that it is a violation of the plaintiffs' rights, under thefederal Americans with Disabilities Act, to cut off importanthealth care funding that, as a result, could force them to live innursing homes or state institutions.

Olivia was born with multiple disabilities. She cannot speak ormove and she uses a respirator to breathe and gets her food andmedicines through a tube. Her parents say she responds when theywalk in the room by flailing her arms and making noise and thatthey can tell when she is happy or in discomfort.

Olivia gets 16 hours a day of nursing care in her home under aprogram for medically fragile and technology dependent children.That care is expensive. The nurses alone cost $220,000 a year.

On Talk of the Nation, Molly Hoffman, the advance practice nurseat Children's Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, the clinic thathelps care for Olivia, said that although this is expensive, itactually saves the state money. "If Olivia were to be in thehospital in the intensive care unit, which is where she would haveto stay if she was hospitalized, her cost would be over $600,000 ayear. So you can see the kind of money that her family is saving."

They've saved that care by -- along with the nurses -- providingattentive and constant care that has kept Olivia healthy and outof the hospital. Until she turned 21, the state compared the costof her home care to the cost of living in a hospital. But whenpeople turn 21, the state says the measure of comparison is nolonger that expensive hospital, but a less expensive nursing home.The state says it will pay for the full cost of Olivia to move toa nursing home. Or it will give the family the equivalent amountof money to pay for aides to come into the house and care forOlivia. The state argues that this still provides good care andthat there are caps on how much it is allowed to spend in theadult program.

John and Tamara Welter doubt that their daughter would get thecare she needs to survive in a nursing home -- if they could evenfind one that would take such a severely disabled adult. If theylose their suit against the state, they are prepared to do more ofthe caregiving at home by themselves. They already care forOlivia the eight hours a day that the nurses are gone. The stateexpects them to hire less expensive personal care aides. But theWelters note that, by state law, aides are not allowed to giveOlivia her complex medicines or put her trache tube back in if itwere to fall out in an emergency.

Many states face similar dilemmas trying to fund expensivecare to children and adults who rely upon ventilators and othertechnology. States around the country face record budget deficitsand Medicaid costs are among the biggest causes. Illinois alonefaces a $15 billion budget deficit this year.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder classaction and derivative complaints were filed in federal and statecourt against the company and certain current and former Immersiondirectors and officers. On Sept. 2, 2009, a securities classaction complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California against the Company and certain ofits current and former directors and officers.

Over the following five weeks, four additional class actioncomplaints were filed. One of these four actions was latervoluntarily dismissed.

The securities class action complaints name the company andcertain current and former Immersion directors and officers asdefendants and allege violations of federal securities laws basedon the company's issuance of allegedly misleading financialstatements. The various complaints assert claims covering theperiod from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatorydamages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.

On Dec. 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by thecourt as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On thesame day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and leadplaintiff's counsel.

Following the company's restatement of its financial statements,lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010.The motion is pending.

The handle can come loose from the body of the carafe and causeliquid to spill, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Kitchentrend 1-liter stainless steelcarafes with model number P0930-X02. The insulated carafe has achrome-plated plastic top with a black plastic base and is linedwith glass. "Kitchentrend" and the model number can be found onthe packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are availableat:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold throughMacy's & Macys.com from September 2010 through October 2010 forabout $20.

Consumers should stop using the recalled carafe immediately andreturn it to the store where it was purchased for a full refund.For additional information, contact J & H International anytime at(800) 770-3214.

JACKSONVILLE, FL: Suit Seeks to Oust Pension Trustees-----------------------------------------------------Timothy J. Gibbons, writing for The Florida Times-Union, reportsa lawyer representing Jacksonville city employees shut out of themunicipal pension plan has asked a judge to replace several of thetrustees overseeing the plan.

"We are seeking to clean up this mess so it doesn't happen again,"Mr. Bogen said. "We're asking to have people removed who have notacted in the best interests of their members."

The complaint also charges that Beth Mangold is not qualified forher job as administrator of the pension system and should bereplaced, and it asks that Calvin Ray, the former director ofadministration and finance, be barred from being a trustee.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of about 100 employees suing thecity because more than 1,000 were required to sign up for SocialSecurity rather than the more lucrative pension fund. Internale-mails from a senior manager in 2007 show officials knew thepractice violated the city charter but attempted to pin the blameon the employees.

Those suits have since been turned into a class action, whichMr. Bogen says now includes thousands of employees.

"These are government employees appointed to their positionpursuant to an ordinance," she said. "It's outrageous to sueindividuals under these circumstances."

For years, the city required employees to take a physical and, ifthey failed, it put them in Social Security rather than the citypension plan. Doing so slashes how much the city has to pay whilethe employee is working and ends its obligation when the employeeretires.

At the beginning of the year, the city put all employees in thepension plan, a move that upped personnel costs by about $3million a year.

Messrs. Miller, Ray and Popell knew the city was systematicallyshutting people out of the pension plan, the complaint says, butfailed to live up to their fiduciary duty to the employers.

"They were paying millions in Social Security taxes," Mr. Bogensaid. "They knew that couldn't be right."

In addition, the complaint says, Mr. Miller hired Ms. Mangold, hisformer secretary, as the administrator of the fund without seekingthe approval of the rest of the board of trustees.

In the three years she's been there, Ms. Mangold has not worked onbehalf of the funds' members, the complaint says.

The broader issue of how to compensate the employees who shouldhave been in the pension fund but were not allowed to join will beaddressed next week, when the city and employees begin mediation.

According to The Wall Street Journal, J&J is withdrawing about4 million packages of children's Benadryl allergy tablets andabout 800,000 bottles of junior-strength Motrin caplets fromdrugstores and suppliers because they were made under less-than-rigorous manufacturing standards. The products were made at J&J'sFort Washington, Pa., plant, before it was temporarily closed dueto a string of quality issues, a spokeswoman said, the reportrelates.

The Wall Street Journal notes that the company isn't askingconsumers to return the popular over-the-counter medicines andsays they can safely keep taking the drugs. J&J said the productspassed its quality testing, and it hasn't received any reports ofside effects, the report discloses.

The withdrawal is the latest fall-out from the manufacturingproblems at J&J, which have led to more than a half-dozen recallsof Benadryl, Motrin, Tylenol and over-the-counter medicines, somecontact lenses and certain hip-replacement parts, The Wall StreetJournal says. The problems, the report relates, are costing J&Jhundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, also led to ashake-up of the company's manufacturing.

J&J's McNeil unit discovered the inadequate manufacturingprocesses as part of a review it conducted in the wake of theissues, the spokeswoman said, the report notes.

The Wall Street Journal posts that the affected products are:Children's Benadryl Allergy Fastmelt Tablets, in cherry and grapeflavors, which were distributed in the U.S., Canada, Belize,Barbados, Puerto Rico, St. Martin, and St. Thomas; and JuniorStrength Motrin Caplets, 24-count, distributed in the U.S.

Various governmental entities are investigating J&J over itshandling of the recalls, including a criminal probe by the U.S.Justice Department, the report adds.

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Granted----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia granted final approval of a settlement agreementresolving a consolidated action against Juniper Networks, Inc.,according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010.

On July 14, 2006, and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actionswere filed in the Northern District of California against thecompany and certain of the company's current and former officersand directors.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In reJuniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW,and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs.The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint onJan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class ActionComplaint on April 9, 2007.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendantsviolated federal securities laws by manipulating stock optiongrant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing falseand misleading statements including, among others, incorrectfinancial statements due to the improper accounting of stockoption grants. The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claimsfor violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased orotherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securitiesfrom July 12, 2001, through and including Aug. 10, 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certainof the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part anddenying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The orderdismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to theextent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14,2001. The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs'section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. The order upheld allof plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs did not amend theircomplaint.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff classconsisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwiseacquired the company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10,2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those whoreceived or acquired Juniper Networks' common stock issuedpursuant to the registration statement on SEC Form S-4, datedMarch 10, 2004, for the company's merger with NetScreenTechnologies Inc.; and purchasers of Zero Coupon ConvertibleSenior Notes due June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registrationstatement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the current andformer officers and directors of the company, their immediatefamilies, their heirs, successors, or assigns and any entitycontrolled by any such person.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered intoan agreement in principle to settle the claims against thecompany and each of the company's current and former officers anddirectors. The settlement is contingent upon approval by theBoards of Trustees of the lead plaintiffs and approval by theCourt.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company andits officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice andreleased in exchange for a $169.0 million cash payment by thecompany. The company considers the proposed payment to beprobable and reasonably estimable and, therefore, recorded thecash settlement amount as a pre-tax operating expense in itsconsolidated statement of operations for the fourth quarter endedDec. 31, 2009.

On April 12, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of theproposed settlement and a fairness hearing was scheduled forAugust 30, 2010, to consider whether to grant final approval ofthe settlement.

On August 31, 2010, the Court granted final approval of thesettlement and issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal withPrejudice.

Under the settlement, the claims against the Company and itsofficers and directors were dismissed with prejudice and releasedin exchange for a $169 million cash payment by the Company.

KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suits Over Pfizer Merger----------------------------------------------------------King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has been named as a defendant inseveral lawsuits seeking to enjoin the Company's merger withPfizer, Inc., according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form 10-Qfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended September 30, 2010.

Since the announcement on October 12, 2010 of the KingPharmaceutical, Inc.'s entry into an agreement and plan of mergerwith Pfizer Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., anumber of putative class action lawsuits have been filed infederal and state court in Tennessee by purported shareholders ofthe Company on behalf of themselves and other shareholders of theCompany.

The complaints name as defendants the Company and its directorsand, in certain cases, Pfizer.

The complaints variously allege, among other things, that theCompany's directors breached their fiduciary duties toshareholders of the Company in connection with the Company's entryinto the agreement and plan of merger with Pfizer.

Certain of the complaints also allege that the Company and/orPfizer aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches offiduciary duties.

The plastic anchors attaching the fabric seat back to the framecan break, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

L.L. Bean has received six reports of the plastic anchorsbreaking, resulting in four reports of falls. No injuries havebeen reported.

This recall involves L.L. Bean folding camp rockers with a fabriccover and a steel frame. The rockers have a fabric/mesh seat andback and a cup holder on the right armrest. "L.L. Bean" is printedon the seat back. Rockers with the number RNR113 and RNR114listed on the white tag under the seat are included in the recall.Folding camp rockers with fabric anchors are not included in thisrecall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

MARINER ENERGY: Negotiating Settlement of Two Merger-Related Suits------------------------------------------------------------------Mariner Energy, Inc., has completed agreed-upon confirmatorydiscovery and continue to negotiate in good faith to finalize asettlement agreement to resolve two lawsuits filed in connectionwith its planned merger with Apache Corporation, according to thecompany's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 15, 2010, Mariner and Apache Corporation disclosed thatthey entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Apachewill acquire Mariner in a stock and cash transaction. TheAgreement and Plan of Merger dated April 14, 2010, by and amongApache, Mariner and ZMZ Acquisitions LLC, a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Apache -- Merger Sub -- contemplates a merger --Merger -- whereby Mariner will be merged with and into Merger Sub,with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiaryof Apache.

Subsequent to the announcement of the merger with Apache, twostockholder lawsuits styled as class actions were commenced onbehalf of Mariner stockholders challenging the merger.

The suit styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.Mariner Energy, Inc., et al, Cause No. 2010-24355, was filed inthe 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas againstMariner and its directors. Plaintiff alleges that the Marinerdirectors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell thecompany through an unfair process and at an unfair price, and thatMariner aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction and to be awardedattorney's fees.

The matter Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v.Scott D. Josey, et al, cause No. 5427-VCP, was filed in the Courtof Chancery of the State of Delaware against Mariner, itsdirectors, certain Mariner officers, Apache and Merger Sub.Plaintiff alleges that the Mariner directors breached theirfiduciary duties by agreeing to sell the company through an unfairprocess and at an unfair price, and by agreeing to the vesting ofcertain restricted stock held by Mariner management. Plaintiffalso alleges that Apache and Merger Sub aided and abetted in thosebreaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the mergerand to be awarded attorney's fees.

On Aug. 1, 2010, the parties to the Delaware action entered into amemorandum of understanding, which, when reduced to a settlementagreement, is intended to be a final resolution of that action.Also on Aug. 1, 2010, the parties to the Texas action agreed to bebound by the memorandum of understanding with respect to thataction. In connection with the settlement, and in exchange forthe releases, Apache and Mariner agreed to, and on Aug. 2, 2010Apache, Mariner and Merger Sub did, amend the Merger Agreement toeliminate the termination fee in the event that Mariner terminatesthe Merger Agreement in order to enter into a "superior proposal"with another party and to make certain additional disclosures inthe proxy statement/prospectus for the transaction filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

Additionally, in the event that any proceedings regardingappraisal rights under Section 262 of the Delaware GeneralCorporation Law are commenced following the merger, Apache andMariner have waived and will not present any argument that sharesof Mariner restricted stock granted pursuant to Mariner's 2008Long-Term Performance-Based Restricted Stock Program will becounted in determining the total number of Mariner sharesoutstanding in such proceeding.

The parties have completed agreed-upon confirmatory discovery andcontinue to negotiate in good faith to finalize a settlementagreement to present to the Court of Chancery of the State ofDelaware for final approval. Pursuant to the settlement, theDelaware action will be dismissed with prejudice on the merits,the plaintiffs in the Texas action will voluntarily dismiss thataction with prejudice, and all defendants will be released fromany and all claims relating to, among other things, the merger,the Merger Agreement and any disclosures made in connectiontherewith. The settlement is subject to customary conditions,including consummation of the merger, completion of certainconfirmatory discovery, class certification, and final approval bythe Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The settlementwill not affect the form or amount of the consideration to bereceived by Mariner stockholders in the merger.

The defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing orliability with respect to all claims, events, and transactionscomplained of in these actions or that they have engaged in anywrongdoing. The defendants entered into the settlement toeliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distractionof further litigation.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Role-------------------------------------------------------------Reuters reports an important but little-understood player in thehome foreclosure process, the Mortgage Electronic RegistrationSystems Inc., has been buffeted by a growing number of class-action lawsuits and unfavorable court rulings, a Reuters Legalreview of Westlaw data shows. In addition, according to threesources, the company is under scrutiny by state attorneys general.The legal onslaught could prove to be a new drag on the still-sputtering U.S. housing market.

The company, known as MERS, is an electronic registry of more than66 million mortgage loans. Created in 1995 by major banks tofacilitate mortgage securitization, MERS records the transfer ofdeeds and promissory notes and often acts as a representative, or"nominee," for financial institutions during public auctions offoreclosed properties. Its members include the largest U.S.mortgage providers and servicers.

In October, the attorneys generals of all 50 states announced ajoint investigation into "robo-signers," employees of banks andmortgage servicers who signed off on thousands of foreclosures aday. The AGs' investigation now includes an examination of MERS'role in those foreclosures, according to a lawyer involved in theinvestigation and two outside lawyers who said they have spokenwith investigators.

Patrick Madigan, an assistant attorney general in Iowa, whichleads the 50-state investigation, declined to comment about thematter. A MERS spokesman said the company has not been contactedby any state attorney general's office in connection with theforeclosure investigation. In testimony to the Senate BankingCommittee last week, MERS chief executive R.K. Arnold said thecompany recently suspended robo-signers who worked as "MERScertifying officers."

In the wake of the housing market meltdown, banks have been acommon target of plaintiffs' lawyers representing homeownersfacing foreclosure. Now, MERS is emerging as another defendant-of-choice in the exploding foreclosure crisis, as lawyers seize onits role as a foreclosure middleman in their ongoing effort toattack the legitimacy of foreclosures. It's certainly a juicytarget: from the beginning of 2007 through October, MERS served asthe lender, servicer or plaintiff in 508,268 foreclosure auctionnotices, 12% of the nationwide total, according to data providedexclusively to Reuters Legal by research firm RealtyTrac. That'sroughly the same amount as for major lenders such as Bank ofAmerica and Wells Fargo.

Since September, lawyers have filed class-action lawsuits againstMERS on behalf of homeowners in Georgia, Florida, New York andKentucky. The lawsuits allege that MERS did not have legitimatetitle to the foreclosed properties, so the foreclosures werefraudulent. Besides seeking damages, many of the lawsuits areasking for court orders to vacate all foreclosures in the stateswhere MERS was involved. And in the last six months, judges in atleast six states have halted foreclosures because they found thatMERS either lacked standing to be an agent for mortgage firms orhad improperly transferred ownership rights.

If the trend continues, it's not only MERS that could suffer. Thelegal assault on MERS casts doubt on the ownership rights ofcountless foreclosed properties. And because foreclosedproperties represent such a significant segment of the currenthousing market -- a full quarter of all homes sold in the U.S.during the second quarter were in foreclosure, according toRealtyTrac -- the broader housing market is exposed. "A lot ofpeople who have bought homes or are looking to buy homes are goingto have a lot of problems because of MERS," said Alan White, anassociate professor at Valparaiso University School of Law inIndiana who has written extensively about foreclosures.

MERS says the accusations are unfounded. "Claims that MERSdisrupts or creates a legal defect in the mortgage or deed oftrust are not supported by fact or legal precedent," chiefexecutive Arnold said last month. In a statement issued onNov. 12, MERS said: "The courts have always found in MERS' favorwhen our members followed all other required laws and procedures."

Indeed, in the last couple of years, MERS has prevailed either attrial or on appeal in more than a dozen lawsuits in which it wasthe defendant. Most recently, U.S. District Judge James Teilborgof Phoenix dismissed a consolidated class-action suit againstMERS, ruling on Sept. 30 that banks properly named MERS as thenominee for the original lenders and that plaintiffs failed toprove allegations that MERS improperly deprived homeowners oftheir property.

But more decisions have been going the other way. In May, KingsCounty, New York, Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack ruled thatMERS had improperly transferred a mortgage to HSBC, when its ownrecords indicated the party with a right to foreclose was WellsFargo. MERS creates a "mortgage twilight zone," Judge Schacksaid, calling arguments that the foreclosure in question waslegitimate "incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous."He dismissed the foreclosure and ruled that it could not beresubmitted.

And on Oct. 6, U.S. District Judge Garr King of Oregon issued aninjunction halting a foreclosure sale after determining that MERSlacked standing to transfer the mortgage. "The public interest isserved by ensuring that foreclosure sales occur only when there isno defect in the preceding property transactions," King wrote. AMERS spokeswoman said company executives were unavailable tocomment on these cases.

'STRAW MAN'

MERS' standing to foreclose was seriously eroded last year by theKansas Supreme Court, which unanimously rejected a claim by MERSthat as the representative of a lender that owned the secondmortgage on a property, it should have been notified of aforeclosure action brought by the owner of the first mortgage. Inits ruling, the court called MERS a "straw man" that lacks therights of a creditor. The decision likened the firm to "the blindmen of Indian legend (describing) an elephant -- their descriptiondepended on which part they were touching at any given time."

Plaintiffs' attorneys are now commonly citing the Kansas case asthe basis for class-action lawsuits against MERS on behalf ofthousands of homeowners. A class-action lawsuit filed Oct. 23 inFulton County, Ga., claims MERS has no standing to initiateforeclosure proceedings. The lawsuit seeks damages and asks thecourt to invalidate foreclosures in Georgia where MERS was aparty. Class-action complaints filed in federal courts in NewYork and Florida in September make similar claims.

The pressure on MERS shows no sign of letting up. John Walsh, theacting Comptroller of the Currency, testified before the HouseFinancial Services Committee last week that his agency isconducting an examination of MERS' "corporate governance, controlsystems, and accuracy and timeliness of information maintained inthe MERS system." The inquiry, Walsh said, is being coordinatedwith the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., andthe Federal Housing Finance Agency.

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Faces 2 Class Suits Over Superior Well Merger----------------------------------------------------------------Nabors Industries Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary, DiamondAcquisition Corp., were sued in August 2010 in three putativeshareholder class actions, two of which remain pending:

* Steven Bushansky, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Shareholders of Superior Well Services, Inc. v. Superior Well Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-01121-CB, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

* Jordan Denney, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. David E. Wallace, et al., Civil Action No. 10-1154, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuits suits were recently assigned to the same judge, andthe Company has moved the court to consolidate them.

The suits were brought against Superior Well Services Inc., theindividual members of its board of directors, certain ofSuperior's senior officers, Nabors and Diamond.

Nabors and its affiliates completed a merger transaction withSuperior on September 10, 2010, whereby Nabor acquired all theoutstanding common stock of Superior for $681.3 million. Superiorprovides a wide range of wellsite solutions to oil and natural gascompanies, primarily technical pumping services and down-holesurveying services,

The complaints allege that Superior's officers and directorsviolated various provisions of the Exchange Act and breached theirfiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Naborsand Diamond aided and abetted these violations.

The complaints sought injunctive relief, including an injunctionagainst the consummation of the Merger, monetary damages, andattorney's fees and costs.

Each of the claims against Superior and its directors is coveredby insurance after a deductible amount, the Company notes.

The Company notes in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010, that it believes the cases are without meritand are vigorously defending them.

NOVATEL WIRELESS: Discovery in California Securities Suit Ongoing-----------------------------------------------------------------Discovery in the matter In re Novatel Wireless SecuritiesLitigation, is ongoing, according to Novatel Wireless, Inc.'sNovember 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putativesecurities class action lawsuits were filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of California on behalfof persons who allegedly purchased the company's stock betweenFebruary 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, theselawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v.Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al. , Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB)(Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D.Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In reNovatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed theconsolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedlypurchased the company's stock between February 27, 2007 andNovember 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Companyand certain of the company's current and former officers asdefendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that thecompany issued materially false and misleading statements duringthe relevant time period regarding the strength of its productsand market share, its financial results and its internal controls.The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages andcosts. The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs'motion for class certification and the defendants filed a petitionfor permission to appeal that order to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit. On August 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuitdenied defendants' petition for permission to appeal the districtcourt's order granting class certification.

Discovery in this case is ongoing. The Company intends to defendthis litigation vigorously. Due to the preliminary nature of thislitigation, the Company is unable to estimate a range of exposureassociated with this litigation.

NOVELL INC: Attachmate Bid Attracts Class Action Probes-------------------------------------------------------Sean Michael Kerner, writing for InterNetNews, reports that noteveryone is happy about Attachmate's bid to acquire Novell for$2.2 billion. In fact, the deal has now attracted at least two(and likely many more to come) legal "investigations" which couldultimately result in class action law suits.

One of the investigations is being led by Weiss & Lurie, anational class action and shareholder rights law firm while asecond investigation is being run by Kendal Law Group, led byformer federal judge Joe Kendall.

Both groups are going to examine whether or not Novell hasbreached its fiduciary duty with the proposed Attachmate deal, bynot getting the best deal possible for Novell's shareholders.

Attachmate is set to pay Novell shareholders $6.10 per share whichis a premium over the value of the share before the deal wasannounced. However the price per share is still below the targetprice for the shares set by at least one analyst, which could beas high as $7.50.

InterNetNews says these types of "investigations" aren't all thatuncommon. Everyone always wants to get as much as they can and ifthere is ever even a hint that more money is on the table,shareholder groups and class action lawyers get involved.

"It's unclear at this early stage if these investigation will haveany impact on the expected 2011 closing date for the acquisition.However, given the large shareholder buy-in already from ElliottAssociates, I don't think that Novell needs to be too concerned,"InterNetNews' Mr. Kerner says.

OAKLAND, CA: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Class Action-------------------------------------------------------Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the city ofOakland, Calif., did not violate federal labor law when itrequired a police officer who quit before two years to pay back80% of her $8,000 training costs, the United States Court ofAppeals for Ninth Circuit ruled Friday.

The federal appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the districtcourt's dismissal of Courtney Gordon's class action for failure tostate a claim.

The former police officer's debt was a "voluntarily accepted loan"from the city, not a kickback under the Fair Labor Standards Act,Senior Circuit Judge Procter Hug wrote.

Ms. Gordon had argued that Oakland's longstanding reimbursementagreement, which required her to repay 80% of her training costs,or $6,400, when she resigned before her second year of service,violated federal law because it "caused her to receive less thanthe federal minimum wage during her final workweek."

The city deducted part of the debt from Gordon's final paycheck.She later paid the remainder out-of-pocket and moved to file anamended complaint.

The federal judge dismissed Ms. Gordon's motion, ruling thatbecause her final paycheck exceeded the minimum wage, the city'sdemand for reimbursement was legal.

Ms. Gordon fared no better in the 9th Circuit.

"The $5,268.03 payment Gordon made to the city is repayment of avoluntarily accepted loan, not a kickback," Judge Hug wrote.

Oakland could require its police applicants to be fully trained,at no cost to the city, before signing a contract, Judge Hugexplained. Instead, the city advances them the cost of trainingand requires that they pay back a pro-rated portion if they resignbefore completing five years on the job.

"Gordon, however, chose not to serve the five years necessary tosecure complete forgiveness," Judge Hug wrote. "Despite the debtGordon owed following her resignation, the city satisfied theFLSA's requirements by paying Gordon at least minimum wage for herfinal week of work. The city was therefore free to seek repaymentof Gordon's training debt as an ordinary creditor."

A copy of the Opinion in Gordon v. City of Oakland, No. 09-16167(9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/hCzbl

PEABODY ENERGY: Petition of Mandamus Pending in Supreme Court-------------------------------------------------------------In April 2006, residents and owners of land and property along theMississippi Gulf coast filed a purported class action lawsuit inthe U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippiagainst more than 45 oil, chemical, utility and coal companies,including Peabody Energy Corp.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions"were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in thedestructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina," and sought damagesbased on several legal theories. The defendants filed motions todismiss on the grounds of lack of personal and subject matterjurisdiction.

In August 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismissfor lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs'claims are barred by the political question doctrine and for lackof standing.

In October 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) reversed in part thedecision of the trial court, holding that the plaintiffs hadstanding to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass andnegligence claims. The court held that plaintiffs did not satisfythe prudential standing requirement for their unjust enrichment,fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims anddismissed those claims and ordered that the case be remanded tothe district court for further proceedings.

In March 2010, the Fifth Circuit vacated the panel opinion andordered a hearing en banc before the full Fifth Circuit toconsider plaintiffs' appeal. After the en banc court was properlyconstituted, a recusal by one of the judges resulted in the enbanc court losing its quorum.

On May 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order indicating thatthe court had no authority to reinstate the panel decision anddirecting the clerk to dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Mandamus with the UnitedStates Supreme Court, according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit andintends to defend against and oppose it vigorously, but cannotpredict its outcome. Based on the Company's evaluation of theissues and their potential impact, the amount of any future losscannot be reasonably estimated. However, based on currentinformation, the Company believes this matter is likely to beresolved without a material adverse effect on its financialcondition, results of operations or cash flows.

The application against the three major bread producers was filedin the Cape High Court on November 19, 2010 and follows theCompetition Commission's findings that the companies participatedin a cartel that fixed the price of bread in December 2006.

Human Rights lawyer at Abraham Kiewitz Attorneys, Charles Abrahamson Tuesday applied for permission on behalf of the group to act asclass representative. "It's only the second class action everundertaken in South Africa, and the first of its kind to seekactual damages for the victims, and on such a large scale.Although administrative penalties have been handed down by theCompetition Commission, the consumers who suffered as a result ofthe unlawful actions of these companies have not been compensated.

Representing millions of consumers

"Our class action is initially aimed at representing the millionsof bread consumers in the Western Cape, but we intend to extend itnationally as well. Should we be successful, we would like to setup a Trust that would benefit consumers," Mr. Abrahams said.

In a separate but parallel class action, a group of smallindependent bread distributors, including Imraahn Ismail-Mukaddamwho blew the whistle on the price-fixing scandal, is also seekingcompensation on behalf of distributors in the Western Cape.

The Competition Commission recently reached a settlement withPioneer Foods after both Tiger Consumer Brands and Premier Foodsadmitted involvement in the cartel. Premier was granted leniencyfor co-operating with the Commission and Tiger Consumer Brandsreached a settlement in late 2007.

'They denied wrongdoing'

Black Sash National Director Marcella Naidoo said that althoughall the companies received record fines, the penalties were stillconsiderably less than the initial amounts recommended by theCommission. "They had asked for a penalty of 10 percent ofPioneer's national annual turnover for 2006/7, and 10 percent ofits turnover for the production and sale of bread in the WesternCape for the same period.

"Although the one billion [rand] fine is the biggest ever imposedon a South African company, it must be remembered that PioneerFoods was completely uncooperative. They initially denied anywrongdoing and then vigorously resisted prosecution and thepayment of any penalties," Ms. Naidoo added.

Chairperson of the National Consumer Forum Thami Bolani insistedthe unlawful actions of the three bread producers violated theprovisions in the 'Bill of Rights' dealing with the right to foodand nutrition, especially for children. "We believe colludingcompanies deserve harsher penalties and that consumers should becompensated. Consumer law is developing very rapidly in SouthAfrica and we hope a class action of this kind will set animportant precedent, particularly in the interests of poorcommunities," Mr. Bolani said.

The employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filedCase No. 3:2010-cv-02080 against Raytheon Company on October 7,2010. According to the complaint, Raytheon, the technology giantspecializing in defense and homeland security, failed to have a"timekeeping system to accurately record and pay" the laboratoryemployees "for the actual number of hours they worked each day" inviolation of California overtime laws.

On November 2, 2010, the overtime law firm of Blumenthal,Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Case No. 3:2010-cv-02255 against Ecolab-- the global leader in developing cleaning and repair products.According to the complaint, the case involves allegations thatEcolab failed to properly pay the proper amount of overtime wagesto repair and maintenance employees with job titles such as "RouteManagers," "Route Sales Managers," "Sales Route Specialists,""Service Installers" and "Service Professionals."

On November 17, 2010, the employment law lawyers of Blumenthal,Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Case No. 3:2010-cv-02373 againstEnterprise Rent-A-Car Company in the Southern District ofCalifornia, alleging that the rental car company violated statelabor laws by failing to pay Management Assistants and Traineesfor the actual number of hours they worked and spent training forthe job, including both regular hours and overtime hours.

For more information about California overtime laws and workplacerights, contact an employment law attorney at Blumenthal,Nordrehaug & Bhowmik by visiting http://www.bamlawca.com/or calling 877-852-3912.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment lawfirm dedicated to representing employees who are victims ofdiscrimination, wage and hour violations, harassment or otherillegal and unfair treatment in the workplace. The labor law firmhandles individual claims and class actions brought by employeesthroughout California.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported classaction lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin International, Inc.The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County, Californiaand has been removed to Federal District Court for the CentralDistrict of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of2005.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and special damages,restitution for unfair competition, premium pay, penalties andwages under the Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest andcosts.

On March 24, 2010, the Court granted a stay of the case pendingthe outcome of a California case currently pending before theCalifornia Supreme Court for review. That case involves similarallegations regarding rest and meal breaks. It is anticipatedthat the California Supreme Court will provide useful guidance onrest and meal breaks when the opinion in that case is issued.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of theDepartment of Justice had instituted an investigation of thepackaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putativeclass action lawsuits, were filed against the Company, Reddy IceCorporation, Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund,Arctic Glacier, Inc., and Arctic Glacier International, Inc., invarious federal courts in multiple jurisdictions allegingviolations of federal and state antitrust laws and related claimsand seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have beentransferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaisoncounsel for the putative direct and indirect purchaser classes. OnSeptember 15, 2009, the lead plaintiffs for each of the putativedirect and indirect purchaser classes filed consolidated amendedcomplaints.

The Company and Arctic Glacier filed motions to dismiss both ofthese complaints. Home City filed a motion to dismiss the indirectpurchaser complaint and entered into a proposed settlementagreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The motions by theCompany and Arctic Glacier to dismiss the direct purchaser claimswere denied by the Court on July 1, 2010. An order grantingpreliminary approval of Home City's settlement with the directpurchasers and authorizing dissemination of notice was entered onSeptember 2, 2010.

The motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser complaint arepending, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended September 30, 2010.

REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Statement of Claim----------------------------------------------------------Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., has yet to be served a putative classaction Statement of Claim filed in the Court of Queen's Bench ofAlberta.

On March 8, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim wasfiled against the Company in the Court of Queen's Bench ofAlberta, Judicial District of Calgary, in Canada, allegingviolations of Part VI of the Competition Act and seeking generaldamages, special and pecuniary damages, punitive and exemplarydamages, interest and costs.

This Statement of Claim has yet not been served on the company,according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010.

Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints havebeen filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofMichigan asserting claims under the federal securities lawsagainst the company and certain of its current or former seniorofficers. The complaints, which are substantially similar, allegethat the defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose theexistence of, and the company's alleged participation in, analleged antitrust conspiracy in the packaged ice industry. Thecomplaints purport to assert claims on behalf of various allegedclasses of purchasers of the company's common stock.

On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions and appointeda lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's counsel. The leadplaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 2, 2009.

The Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss theconsolidated amended complaint. A hearing was held on thosemotions on October 22, 2010. The motions were taken underadvisement.

On March 1, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim wasfiled against the company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justicein Canada, alleging violations of Part VI of the Competition Actand seeking general damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs.

A case conference regarding this matter was held on June 9, 2010.In that case conference, a schedule was set for proceedingsrelating to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Class,according to the company's Nov. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010.

REDBOX AUTOMATED: Change of Class Action Lawyers Approved---------------------------------------------------------Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reportsSt. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien agreed on Nov. 9 tosubstitute attorney Jeffrey Millar's former law firm, Brent Coon &Associates, with his new employer Saville and Flint of GlenCarbon, in a proposed class action against Redbox DVD rentalkiosks.

Mr. Millar, who used to be employed by the Lakin Law Firm in WoodRiver (now LakinChapman) before he left to join Coon's firm, isamong a group of lawyers that represents Redbox lead plaintiffLaurie Piechur.

Ms. Piechur proposes to lead a class of DVD renters who claim thatRedbox Automated Retail Inc. charged inappropriate late charges tocustomers using its kiosks.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $350,000, costs and otherrelief.

If certified, Ms. Piechur's suit would be a nationwide classaction.

Redbox denies the claims in the suit.

The company has tried unsuccessfully to have the case dismissed.

The last filing in the case was a move by Redbox asking to beallowed to file additional defenses based on information gatheredin the suit's ongoing discovery.

That motion was filed in September.

A move by the owner of Blockbuster Video, a third party in thesuit's discovery, is also moving to quash Ms. Piechur's discoveryrequests.

Eric Brandfonbrener of Perkins Coie of Chicago and Robert Spraguerepresent Redbox.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young presides until hisretirement Nov. 30.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Part of Class Action Verdict Up for Trial--------------------------------------------------------------Steve Vockrodt, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reportsa Missouri appellate court on Tuesday sent for a new trial largeportions of a $104 million verdict in a massive class-actionlawsuit against banks offering second mortgages.

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, also upheldportions of the verdict and increased an actual damage award bymore than $2 million.

A 2008 trial in Jackson County against Residential Funding Co.,Household Financing Corp. and Wachovia Equity Servicing LLC hadresulted in a $5.1 million verdict for actual damages and $99million in punitive damages.

The entities were sued by a Blue Springs couple alleging that thefinancing corporations were charging interest and fees asoriginators of second mortgages that were out of bounds of theSecond Mortgage Loan Act passed in Missouri in 1979.

The appellate court increased the $5.1 million actual damage awardto approximately $7.5 million.

That does not include an attorney's fee award for the plaintiffs,which could land in the $3 million range.

The punitive damage award was sent back to Jackson County CircuitCourt for a new trial after the appellate court found a proceduralerror in the instructions given to the jury.

A new award could result in a higher or lower punitive damageaward; the appellate court did not dispute whether there shouldhave been a punitive award.

Fred Walters, who represents the plaintiffs and is a partner withKansas City-based Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan PC, said heis banking on a higher award this time around, given the badpublicity mortgage companies have endured as the housing crisisunfolded.

"Given what we have been hearing about the mortgage companies overthe past few years . . . I don't think the mortgage companies arehigh on the list of favored defendants by the public as a whole,"Mr. Walters said.

A lawyer representing the mortgage companies could not immediatelybe reached for comment.

The models have a grounding system and trigger switch that couldcause ground wire abrasion and/or ground connector failure posinga shock hazard. In addition, the switch trigger could becomestuck in the "on" position posing an injury hazard to the user.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Bosch 1/2 inch 2-Speed Hammer Drill withmodel number HD19-2, HD19-2D, HD19-2L and 1/2 inch 2-Speed HammerDrills with model number HD 21-2 are included in this recall."BOSCH" is printed in red lettering on the side of the drills.Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Switzerland and soldthrough home improvement, hardware and major retailers nationwideand various distributors from September 2009 through August 2010for between about $140 and $220.

Consumers should immediately stop using the hammer drill andreturn hammer drill to Robert Bosch Tool Corporation for repair.For additional information, contact Bosch toll-free at (866) 244-2110 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday throughFriday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.Boschtools.com/

Antoine Land, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, worked as anon-exempt technician for defendants. Defendants are in thebusiness of installing and servicing cable television services inthe State of Illinois.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the company and eight other steel manufacturingcompanies were served with a class action antitrust complaint,filed in the Court in Chicago by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were soldin the United States, starting in 2005, by artificiallyrestricting the supply of such steel products. Six additionallawsuits, each of them materially similar to the original, havealso been filed in the same federal court, each of them likewiseseeking similar class certification. All but one of theComplaints purport to be brought on behalf of a class consistingof all direct purchasers of steel products between Jan. 1, 2005and the present. The other Complaint purports to be brought onbehalf of a class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steelproducts within the same time period. All Complaints seek trebledamages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- andpost-judgment interest and injunctive relief.

On Jan. 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed aJoint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits. OnJune 12, 2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.

The parties are currently conducting limited discovery.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 5,2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

SYDNEY: Class Action Boundaries in Contamination Suit Narrowed--------------------------------------------------------------Nancy King, writing for The Cape Breton Post, reports the proposedboundaries for a class-action lawsuit related to contaminationassociated with the operation of the Sydney steel plant and cokeovens site have been narrowed, a lawyer for the plaintiffs saidTuesday.

"Naturally, the steelworks and the coke ovens divide the city intotwo, and so we have a north boundary and a south boundary,"Ray Wagner said.

The detailed descriptions of the new proposed southern andnorthern zone boundaries are each more than seven pages. The newboundaries could include approximately 6,000 households, he said.

"The idea, of course, in the north (zone) was to encompass most ofthe Whitney Pier area that as best as we can discern as a resultof the deposition of contaminants on the ground, the area thatwould be impacted . . . in excess of the CCME (Canadian Council ofMinisters of the Environment) guidelines," Mr. Wagner said.

In the case of lead, those guidelines are 140 parts per millionand 12 parts per mission for arsenic, he added.

The southern zone includes part of Ashby, north end Sydney anddowntown Sydney.

Originally, the plaintiffs had proposed the class includeresidents and property owners within a 5.6-kilometer radius ofVictoria Road and Laurier Street. Justice John Murphy issued apartial ruling in June indicating he will certify the matter as aclass action but only once the proposed class is significantlynarrowed.

"Our goals are to ensure, basically, that it's not too expensive,it's not too big, and at the same time we're not leaving peopleout that should be included," Mr. Wagner said. "When you'redealing with chemical deposition into a community, it knows nodefinitive boundaries, so all we're left with is trying to do thebest that we can. It's not perfect, but we think it's prettygood."

Members of the residential class would have to have lived inSydney for a continuous seven-year period.

The province has introduced evidence arguing that the North ofCoke Ovens report compiled by Jacques Whitford, Dillon, ADI andCBCL should be used to determine the boundaries.

"It basically says that the area should be circumscribed muchnarrower than what we have," Mr. Wagner said.

He added he expects them to argue that south Sydney should not beincluded, but noted the work of Dr. Tim Lambert showscontamination in that area.

The lawsuit against Ottawa and the province was filed six yearsago. No defenses have been filed and discovery hasn't yet takenplace. The representative plaintiffs are seeking some financialcompensation and a medical monitoring fund.

The class action will be certified on several causes of action --for both residents and property owners on the basis of breach offiduciary duty, strict liability and nuisance, and for propertyowners for negligence. Justice Murphy has also added negligentand intentional battery and trespass.

Once Justice Murphy approves the boundaries, a certification orderwill be filed and then they will move into discovery. A triallooking at the issues common to the class will follow, which couldstill be several years away. One of those issues would be thechemical levels at which the court would order remediation.

It is the first environmental class action to be certified in theprovince.

Documents that have been filed with the court in the case,including the detailed proposed boundaries, can be found online atsydneyclassaction.ca

The hearing will take place Dec. 16. It will be broadcast onlineon the provincial courts Web site, http://www.courts.ns.ca/

SYNGENTA CROP: Stephen Tillery Can Pursue Atrazine Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reportsthat U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert will let Stephen Tillerypursue a class action for water companies claiming contaminationfrom weed killer atrazine, but he will set high hurdles for Mr.Tillery to clear.

On Nov. 18, Judge Gilbert granted Mr. Tillery's clients standingto sue Syngenta Crop Protection, but he wrote that he might denyit at trial.

Judge Gilbert wrote that they must show that "any costs they seekto recover, past or future, must have been or will be necessary inorder to satisfy their statutory obligation to provide potablewater, not simply to serve a lesser, though laudable, goal."

He wrote that he made no judgment as to whether Syngenta isresponsible for atrazine in water sources or for costs ofmonitoring and remediating water.

"Whether the plaintiffs' past costs were actually caused bySyngenta or by some other concern or atrazine manufacturer is amatter to be fleshed out at later stages of this litigation," hewrote.

He wrote that he made no judgment as to whether atrazine is adefective product.

"At this stage of the litigation, it is enough that plaintiffsallege it is so," he wrote.

He put aside for now Syngenta's plea that future damages arespeculative and the alleged nuisance is temporary, finding thoseitems might limit the recovery.

"The question of how much the plaintiffs can legally recover is amatter to be decided at a later stage of this case," he wrote.

Likewise he put aside Syngenta's argument that a five year statuteof limitations bars any claims prior to March 2005, five yearsbefore Mr. Tillery sued Syngenta.

"Whether their recovery, if any, is limited by the statute oflimitations is an issue for later in the case," he wrote.

Tillery's clients claim Syngenta made atrazine and sold it tofarmers knowing it had great potential to run off crop land andinto bodies of water.

They seek to hold Syngenta liable for costs they incurred to testlevels of atrazine and remove it from water.

UNITED STATES: Court Remands FCRA Class Action Suit for Review--------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that the United States governmentmight have to pay attorneys for allegedly violating federal law byprinting the expiration date of their credit cards on a web pageconfirming payment of e-filing fees, the Federal Circuit ruled.

Attorney James Bormes used his credit card to pay the e-filing feefor a lawsuit he filed on behalf of one of his clients. Thetransaction was processed by the government's pay.gov system,which sent him a confirmation web page allegedly containing hiscredit card's expiration date.

A federal judge granted the government's motion to dismiss,explaining that the FCRA did not waive the government's sovereignimmunity.

On appeal, the government urged the Federal Circuit to revive thecase and transfer it to the United States Court of Appeals for theSeventh Circuit in Chicago, but the appeals court ruled that thejudge in Washington, D.C., had jurisdiction.

As the case was pending, the 7th Circuit ruled in another casethat a jurisdictional provision called the Little Tucker Actwaives sovereign immunity for FCRA claims.

WALMART: Supreme Court Tackles Discrimination Class Suit--------------------------------------------------------Lee Ross, writing for Fox News, reports that part of the charm andappeal of Walmart is the seeming ability of shoppers to findanything they could possibly need inside one of its 4,300 storesacross the country. What you can also find in each of thosestores is an employee who's part of a massive class action lawsuitclaiming the retail giant discriminates against women bywithholding promotions and pay raises.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court met in its closed-door conference todiscuss whether to take Walmart's appeal in a multi-billion dollarcase that could have a significant impact on the world's largestprivate employer.

"I could see the men going forth and the women in the store stayedin the basic positions they were always in," Betty Dukes told aninterviewer about what was happening to her at a Walmart inPittsburg, California.

To her surprise, Ms. Dukes wasn't the only female who felt likeshe was passed over by the company. Soon after contacting alawyer, Dukes, an ordained Baptist minister, joined five others aslead plaintiffs in a nationwide class action lawsuit involvingcurrent and former employees that's now the largest employmentclass action case in history, covering more than 1.5 million womenand potentially leading to billions of dollars in damages.

Walmart denies any wrongdoing.

"We do not believe the claims alleged by the six individuals whobrought this suit are representative of the experiences of ourfemale associates," Jeff Gearhart, Executive Vice President andGeneral Counsel for Walmart said in a statement earlier this year."Walmart is an excellent place for women to work and fostersfemale leadership among our associates and in the larger businessworld."

One of the lawyers representing the women tells Fox News that theevidence doesn't support Walmart's claims. Joseph Sellers pointsto years of anecdotal reports of women who were denied raises andpromotions. He also points to Walmart's employment data showingdisparate treatment of women. "That kind of evidence belies anyclaim by Walmart that it's a great place to employ women," Sellerssaid.

But the current case before the Supreme Court has little to dowith the women's discrimination claims under the 1964 Civil RightsAct, rather it challenges their standing to form a class and sue.So far, Walmart has been unsuccessful in its attempts to convincelower courts that a class action suit of this size isimpermissible. The store is now asking the high court to hear thecase and ultimately stop a trial from ever starting.

The company's legal team argues that further review by thejustices is necessary and claims that an adverse ruling from theNinth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is not only incorrect but alsoadds to longstanding uncertainty over the rules governing thecertification of class action suits.

Furthermore, Walmart's lawyers contend the Ninth Circuit's 6 to 5ruling to permit a large group suit prevents the company fromchallenging the claims made against it. "An employer has astatutory, as well as a constitutional, right to an individualizeddefense," company lawyer Ted Boutrous wrote to the Supreme Court.

Walmart's brief quotes extensively from the five dissenters in theNinth Circuit's decision including Judge Sandra Ikuta, whoconcluded that "any reasonable scrutiny of the evidence in thiscase compels the conclusion that although the six plaintiffs heremay have individualized claims of discrimination, they cannotrepresent a class of 1.5 million past and present employees."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Litigation Center eachsubmitted briefs supporting Walmart's position, expressing concernthat a ruling for the plaintiffs will open member businesses tomore costly and unfounded lawsuits.

In its reply brief to the high court, lawyers for the femaleplaintiffs dispute Walmart's claim that the size of the certifiedclass is too large. It is, they write, "a fact that isindisputably true but legally irrelevant." Sellers says Walmart'sclaim that the class action prevents the company from defendingitself from specific individual claims flies in the face oflongstanding precedents.

The plaintiffs' lawyers argue that the Ninth Circuit's ruling leftkey issues unresolved, making high court review at this pointpremature. In particular, they contend the lower court's rulingleaves open the question of whether the class can seek punitivedamages and if former workers who left the company before thelawsuit was filed can participate. Until that matter is resolved,they argue, the Supreme Court should deny review.

A decision on whether the justices will take the case could comeat any time but is not likely to happen before they return to thebench on November 29.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California, Forster, et al. v. Wells Fargo,et al., Index. No. [pending assignment], alleges that ASCimproperly and unlawfully induced borrowers to default on theirmortgages by informing borrowers that loan modifications would notbe considered for those individuals who were current on theirpayments. By making loan default a pre-requisite formodification, without regard to whether a borrower otherwisequalified for a modification due to financial hardship, or ASCcaused borrowers to unnecessarily suffer ruined credit andsubjected them to significant fees, penalties and interest.

ASC is a loan servicer, meaning it does not have a beneficialinterest in the mortgage loans it oversees but rather iscontracted to administer and enforce the terms of the mortgageagreement. As a loan servicer, ASC generates a significantportion of its revenue from fees, penalties, and interestcollected on the non-performing loans it services. Consequently,it is in ASC's financial interest to avoid, delay, and deny loanmodifications and to pursue foreclosures because doing so willlead to increased revenue.

A copy of the complaint is available on the firm's Web sitehttp://www.hfesq.com/or can be obtained by contacting the firm. If you believe you were a victim of ASC's mortgage loanmodification scheme (meaning you went into default based on ASC'srepresentation that you would not qualify for a loan modificationotherwise), you may be part of the proposed class. For moreinformation on this case, you may contact Jeffrey M. Norton --jnorton@hfesq.com -- or Roy Shimon -- rshimon@hfesq.com -- viaemail or toll free at (877) 935-7400.

For over two decades, Harwood Feffer has been a nationallyrecognized firm that specializes in complex, multi-partylitigation with an emphasis on securities, ERISA, consumer fraud,products liability and civil rights litigation. Harwood Fefferserves as lead counsel in numerous class actions on behalf ofinvestors, employees, and consumers and has recovered hundreds ofmillions of dollars in recoveries for its clients.

WILMINGTON TRUST: Accused in Delaware of Misleading Shareholders----------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that directors goosed the shareprice of Wilmington Trust Corp. through false and misleadingstatements, shareholders claim in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rooney v. Wilmington Trust Corporation,et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (D. Del.), is available at:

On July 12, 2010, Leslie filed a voluntary petition underChapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the District of Delaware and, simultaneously, filed apre-negotiated plan of reorganization in an effort to permanentlyresolve Leslie's asbestos liability.

Like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, Leslie,which the Company acquired in 1989, had been, up to the date offiling of the Bankruptcy Petition, and may continue to be named asa defendant in product liability actions brought on behalf ofindividuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure toairborne asbestos fibers. In some instances, the Company also hasbeen named individually and/or as alleged successor in interest inthese cases.

At the Filing Date, Leslie was a named defendant in about 1,340active, unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in California,Texas, New York, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Rhode Island,Illinois and 23 other states. About 713 of these claims involveclaimants allegedly suffering from (or the estates of decedentswho allegedly died from) mesothelioma. In addition to theseclaims, Leslie remained a named defendant in about 69 unresolvedasbestos-related claims filed in Mississippi.

During 2007, Los Angeles state court juries rendered two verdictsthat, if allowed to stand, would have resulted in a liability toLeslie of about US$3.8 million. Although Leslie accrued aliability during 2007 for each of these verdicts, both verdictswere appealed and, during November 2009, the California Court ofAppeals issued its final ruling reversing one of the two judgmentsagainst Leslie.

As a result of this ruling, during the fourth quarter of fiscal2009, the Company reduced the accrued liability associated withLeslie's asbestos claims by US$1.3 million. After receiving afavorable ruling from the appellate court on the second adverseverdict (which initially resulted in a US$2.5 million awardagainst Leslie), Leslie agreed to a reduced award of aboutUS$600,000.

On July 14, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered a temporaryrestraining order that bars the prosecution or commencement ofclaims against the Company or Watts arising from Leslie's allegedasbestos liabilities, and, on Aug. 9, 2010, the Court grantedLeslie's request for a preliminary injunction that bars theprosecution or commencement of such claims until final approval ofthe Reorganization Plan, which would permanently channel suchclaims to the Trust.

The Bankruptcy Court on Aug. 19, 2010, approved Leslie's motionsregarding procedures for voting on the proposed Plan and approvedthe form of a Disclosure Statement which Leslie then sent to theholders of claims against Leslie to enable them to vote on theproposed Plan.

On Oct. 8, 2010, the balloting agent certified to the BankruptcyCourt that the requisite approval from claimants had beenreceived. The Bankruptcy Court held hearings on confirmation ofthe Reorganization Plan on Oct. 26-27, 2010. At the ConfirmationHearings, certain of Leslie's insurers sought to object to theReorganization Plan's confirmation.

The Bankruptcy Court, however, determined that the terms of theReorganization Plan are neutral to the rights of such insurers andthus ruled that the insurers did not have standing to raiseobjections to confirmation. Because Leslie previously hadresolved all of the other objections to confirmation of theReorganization Plan, the Confirmation Hearings proceeded in anuncontested manner, and, on Oct. 28, 2010, the Bankruptcy Courtentered an order confirming the Reorganization Plan.

Leslie is currently awaiting the required review and approval ofthe 524(g) trust aspects of the Reorganization Plan by the U.S.District Court for the District of Delaware. Upon entry of such aDistrict Court order and absent an appeal and entry of any staypending any appeal by the insurers, Leslie and the Company wouldfund the trust once various closing conditions are satisfied andthe Reorganization Plan becomes effective.

On Oct. 29, 2010, one of the insurers did file a notice of appealand the Company anticipates that one or more other insurers willjoin in such an appeal.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, makes and markets valves andother highly engineered products and subsystems that control theflow of fluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy andindustrial markets. The Company is headquartered in Burlington,Mass.

CIRCOR International designs, makes and markets valves and otherhighly engineered products and subsystems that control the flow offluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy andindustrial markets. The Company is headquartered in Burlington,Mass.

From a financial statement perspective, however, after givingeffect to the Company's accrual for the estimated indemnity costof resolving pending claims, Leslie recorded the maximum amount ofavailable primary layer insurance as of September 2008.

As a result, asbestos related indemnity costs from that pointforward were no longer partially offset by a correspondinginsurance recovery. However, defense costs, which were recognizedas incurred, continued to be and, but for filing of the BankruptcyPetition, would continue to be partially offset by a 36%contribution from Leslie's remaining primary layer insurancecarrier until such time as the aggregate amount of indemnityclaims paid out (on a cash basis) by the remaining primary layerinsurance carrier exceeded policy limits.

CIRCOR International designs, makes and markets valves and otherhighly engineered products and subsystems that control the flow offluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy andindustrial markets. The Company is headquartered in Burlington,Mass.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Spence, Hoke---------------------------------------------------------------Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims are pending against twoof CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries -- Spence, the stockof which the Company acquired in 1984; and Hoke, the stock ofwhich the Company acquired in 1998.

No other asbestos matters related to Spence and Hoke weredisclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

CIRCOR International designs, makes and markets valves and otherhighly engineered products and subsystems that control the flow offluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy andindustrial markets. The Company is headquartered in Burlington,Mass.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Still Facing Injury Actions----------------------------------------------------------------Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC continues to be party to anumber of personal injury claims by employees and non-employeeswho may have been exposed to asbestos, according to the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to workconducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines thatwere phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However,other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotivecomponent parts and building materials, continued after 1967 untilthey were substantially eliminated at BNSF by 1985.

During the third quarters of 2010 and 2009, the Company analyzedrecent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used bythe Company to estimate its future asbestos liability werereasonable. In the third quarters of 2010 and 2009, managementdetermined that the liability remained appropriate and no changewas recorded. The Company plans to update its study again in thethird quarter of 2011.

Based on the Company's estimate of the potentially exposedemployees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipatedthat unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed throughthe year 2050.

The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filingperiod through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposedpopulation (former and current employees hired prior to 1985),which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and aboutwhich it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age,hire date and occupation) derived from industry or Company-specific data that was the basis for the study.

The Company projects that about 55%, 75% and 90% of the futureunasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15and 25 years, respectively.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe,LLC is a holding company that conducts no operating activities andowns no significant assets other than through its interests in itssubsidiaries. Through its subsidiaries, the Company is engagedprimarily in the freight rail transportation business.

Plaintiff is suing individually and as personal representative ofthe estate of a deceased smoker. Plaintiff seeks damagesallegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos andcigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos manufacturerdefendants and certain tobacco company defendants, includingCompany unit Liggett Group LLC.

The defendants, including Liggett, filed a motion to dismiss inJuly 2010. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendants' Motionto Dismiss on July 29, 2010. The motions are pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding companythat is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale ofcigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC andVector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.

Plaintiff is suing individually and as personal representative ofthe estate of a deceased smoker. Plaintiff seeks damagesallegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos andcigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos manufacturerdefendants and certain tobacco company defendants, includingCompany unit Liggett Group LLC.

Liggett joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on10/08/10. The motion is pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding companythat is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale ofcigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC andVector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.

Plaintiff and his wife seek damages allegedly caused by exposureto asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestosmanufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants,including Company unit Liggett Group LLC.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in July 2010. Plaintiffsfiled a Response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on July 29,2010. The motions are pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding companythat is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale ofcigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC andVector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.

Liggett joined in and adopted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss onAug. 18, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition toLiggett's Motion to Dismiss on Aug. 20, 2010.

The motions are pending.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding companythat is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale ofcigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC andVector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.

This personal injury class action is brought on behalf ofplaintiff's decedent and all West Virginia residents who allegedlyhave personal injury claims arising from their exposure tocigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.

The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcypetitions filed by three defendants in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the District of Delaware.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding companythat is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale ofcigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC andVector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Still Party to Injury Cases----------------------------------------------------------------Like many other industrial companies in recent years, PrecisionCasptparts Corp. is a defendant in lawsuits alleging personalinjury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in theworkplace, including asbestos.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of thesesuits and has settled a number of others, according to theCompany's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits-----------------------------------------------------------3M Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, innumerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to representabout 2,190 individual claimants as of Sept. 30, 2010, down fromabout 2,510 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31,2009.

The majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currentlypending against the Company allege use of some of the Company'smask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company andother defendants for alleged personal injury from workplaceexposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or otheroccupational dusts found in products manufactured by otherdefendants or generally in the workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury fromoccupational exposure to asbestos from products previouslymanufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as wellas products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally atCompany premises.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $33MM Aearo Liability at Sept. 30---------------------------------------------------------------As of Sept. 30, 2010, 3M Company, through its Aearo Technologiessubsidiary, has recorded US$33 million as an estimate of theprobable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costsrelated to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stockof Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo. Aearo manufacturesand sells various products, including personal protectionequipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certainrespiratory protection products.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, Aearo and/or other companies that previouslyowned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American OpticalCorporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, sometimesincluding the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts inwhich plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products andseek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personalinjury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, orother occupational dusts found in products manufactured by otherdefendants or generally in the workplace.

Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements andjudgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement amongAearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary ofWarner Lambert and their insurers (Payor Group).

Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number ofyears each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety"brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American OpticalCorporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individualplaintiff.

Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by anagreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995.This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot anannual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain responsibility andliability for, and indemnify Aearo against, asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for respirators manufacturedprior to July 11, 1995.

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respiratorallegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, Aearoand Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of thealleged use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica orproducts containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.

With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability islimited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use ofrespirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or otheroccupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997.

To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo couldpotentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of thepre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot ifAearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in thesematters.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $124MM Liabilities at Sept. 30------------------------------------------------------------3M Company recorded US$124 million for respirator mask/asbestosliabilities as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$138 million asof Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded US$119 million for respirator mask/asbestosinsurance receivables as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$143million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

As a result of the greater cost of resolving claims of personswith malignant conditions, as of Sept. 30, 2010, the Companyincreased its reserves for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities byUS$5 million and increased its receivables for insurancerecoveries by US$1 million related to litigation.

As a result of settlements reached with its insurers (primarily inthe first quarter of 2010), the Company was paid about US$25million for the first nine months of 2010 in connection with therespirator mask/asbestos receivable.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Party to Continental Casualty Case----------------------------------------------------------------3M Company continues be involved in an asbestos-related insurancelawsuit filed on behalf of Continental Casualty and ContinentalInsurance Co.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory judgmentaction filed on behalf of two of its insurers (ContinentalCasualty and Continental Insurance Co. -- both part of theContinental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respiratormask/asbestos claims.

These insurers represent about US$14 million of a US$119 millioninsurance recovery receivable. The action, pending in theDistrict Court in Ramsey County, Minn., seeks declaratory judgmentregarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation ofcovered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.

The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of theCompany's insurers. This action is similar in nature to an actionfiled in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, whichultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of2003 that was largely in the Company's favor.

The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that namessome additional insurers and deletes others. Several of theinsurer defendants named in the amended complaint have beendismissed because of settlements they have reached with theCompany regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit.

Three additional insurers have recently been or are being added asparties to the case. The case remains in its early stages with atrial scheduled to begin in June 2012.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Reserves $277,000 for Gradall----------------------------------------------------------------Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning apotential asbestos issue at Gradall's facility in NewPhiladelphia, Ohio, which is expected to be abated over time.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had an environmental reserve in theamount of US$1,602,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall'sfacility.

Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior tothe acquisition are in process of remediation with a remainingreserve balance of US$137,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potentialground water contamination/remediation that was identified beforethe acquisition and believed to have been generated by a thirdparty company located near the Gradall facility.

Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may haveto be remediated over time. Management has made its best estimateof the cost to remediate these environmental issues.

Of such amounts at Sept. 30, 2010, about US$4.3 million was duefrom Resolute Management Services Limited.

Headquartered in Rye Brook, N.Y., The Navigators Group, Inc. is aninternational insurance company focusing on specialty products forniches within the overall property/casualty insurance market. Itslargest product line and most long-standing area of specializationis ocean marine insurance.

Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc.provides insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance tocommercial, institutional, and individual customers in the UnitedStates. Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, lifeinsurance and retirement services, asset management, and financialservices (including financing commercial aircraft leasing) in morethan 120 countries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel, Units Still Party to Injury Actions----------------------------------------------------------------From time to time, FutureFuel Corp. and its operations may beparties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations, andproceedings, including product liability, personal injury,asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract,environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employmentmatters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Mo., FutureFuel Corp. manufacturesbiodiesel and other biofuels. However, its core business isspecialty chemicals, which include herbicides, detergentadditives, colorants, photographic and imaging chemicals, and foodadditives.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Continues to Be Subject to A&E Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------Enstar Group Limited anticipates that it will continue to besubject to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinarycourse of business, including litigation generally related to thescope of coverage with respect to asbestos and environmentalclaims.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Enstar Group Limited acquiresand manages insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off andportfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, andto provide management, consulting and other services to theinsurance and reinsurance industry.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Party to Exposure Claims----------------------------------------------------------------From time to time, California Water Service Group has been namedas a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, accordingto the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been dismissed without prejudice in several ofthese cases. In other cases, the Company's contractors andinsurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect onthe Company's financial statements.

Headquartered in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service Groupis a holding company that provides water utility and other relatedservices in California, Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii throughits wholly owned subsidiaries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case v. Arabian American Filed Sept. 14 in Tex.----------------------------------------------------------------Arabian American Development Company, on Sept. 14, 2010, theCompany received notice of an asbestos lawsuit filed in JeffersonCounty, Tex., according to the Company's quarterly report filed onNov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are about 44 defendants named in the suit.

On Oct. 18, 2010, the Company received notice of another lawsuitfiled in Jefferson County, Tex. The suit alleges that theplaintiff became ill from benzene exposure during his employmentfrom 1970 to 2008 with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, acustomer of South Hampton. There are seven defendants named inthe suit.

Headquartered in Sugar Land, Tex., Arabian American DevelopmentCompany, through its U.S. subsidiary American Shield Refining,operates a specialty petrochemical product refinery (SouthHampton) that primarily produces high-purity solvents used in theplastics and foam industries.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims forindemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damagesfor bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to oruse of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenanceactivities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electricgeneration plants prior to 1985.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, there were 322 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$79million, and 156 asserted claims for malignant cases with thecumulative relief sought of up to US$39 million.

These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in Duke EnergyCarolinas' best estimate of the range of loss for current andfuture asbestos claims through 2030. Management said it believesthat it is possible there will be additional claims filed againstDuke Energy Carolinas after 2030.

Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed theself insurance retention on its insurance policy during the secondquarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will bereimbursed by Duke Energy Carolinas' third party insurancecarrier.

Insurance recoveries of US$850 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 andUS$984 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 related to this policy areclassified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheetsin Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is anenergy company primarily located in the Americas. The Companyoperates in the United States primarily through its direct andindirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as in South America andCentral America through International Energy.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerninguncertainties, such as:

-- The number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Ohio generating plants;

-- The possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and

-- The potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Ohio estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is anenergy company primarily located in the Americas. The Companyoperates in the United States primarily through its direct andindirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as in South America andCentral America through International Energy.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerninguncertainties, such as:

-- The number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana generating plants;

-- The possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed workers, and

-- The potential settlement costs without federal or other legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the foreseeable future is not material.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is anenergy company primarily located in the Americas. The Companyoperates in the United States primarily through its direct andindirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as in South America andCentral America through International Energy.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has $113.8MM Sept. 30 Gross Reserves----------------------------------------------------------------Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s gross asbestos andenvironmental loss reserves amounted to US$113.8 million as ofSept. 30, 2010, compared with US$130 million as of Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's gross loss reserves for A&E matters were US$109.3million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$152.3 million as ofJune 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2010)

The Company's net A&E loss reserves amounted to US$85.7 million asof Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$99.6 million as of Sept. 30,2009.

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company concluded its annualreview of A&E liability reserves. As a result, the Companystrengthened asbestos reserves by US$9.5 million.

The change was driven by increased severity estimates for asbestosclaims primarily pertaining to the Company's assumed reinsurancebusiness.

Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group InternationalHoldings, Ltd. is primarily engaged in writing property andcasualty insurance and reinsurance. The Company has four ongoingreporting segments: Excess and Surplus Lines, CommercialSpecialty, Reinsurance and International Specialty.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's three year survival ratio forproperty and casualty exposures was 9.6 times paid losses for theasbestos reserves and 8.3 times paid losses for the total A&Ereserves. These ratios compare favorably with industry datapublished by Conning Research and Consulting, Inc. in May 2010,which indicate that industry survival ratios were 8.2 for asbestosand 7.7 for total industry A&E reserves at Dec. 31, 2009.

The survival ratio, which is often used by industry analysts tocompare A&E reserves strength across companies, is a measure ofthe number of years that it would take to pay the amount of thecurrent reserves based on the average paid losses over thepreceding three years.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, American Financial Group, Inc.,through its subsidiaries, is engaged in property and casualtyinsurance, focusing on specialized commercial products forbusinesses and in the sale of traditional fixed, indexed andvariable annuities and a variety of supplemental insuranceproducts.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welshpool Co. Penalized for Safety Breaches------------------------------------------------------------The owner of a Welshpool-based window and conservatoryinstallation company has been fined for failing to protect itsworkers from exposure to asbestos, according to a Health andSafety Press release dated Nov. 19, 2010.

Four employees were exposed while removing soffits on a propertyat Chirbury Gate, Montgomery, Powys, Wales, between June 16, 2009and June 17, 2009.

An HSE investigation found that 54-year-old Philip Leslie Davies,trading as Meadow View Windows and Conservatories, had failed totake effective measures to prevent or reduce his employees beingexposed to the potentially deadly substance.

Mr. Davies, of Shrewsbury, admitted exposing employees toasbestos, failing to carry out a suitable and sufficientassessment, and failing to ensure adequate information,instruction and training was provided to employees.

Mr. Davies was charged with breaching of Regulations 5, 10(1) and11(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2006. Hewas fined a total of GBP3,000 (GBP1,000 for each charge) andordered to pay costs of GBP1,615 at Welshpool Magistrates Court onNov. 19, 2010.

HSE inspector Chris Wilcox said, "Four of Mr. Davies' employeeswere exposed to asbestos in circumstances that were whollyavoidable. They now have to live with the fear of becoming illwith a life-threatening lung disease.

"Those working in the roofline products industry must check forthe presence of asbestos and be fully aware of the legalrequirements for working with asbestos-containing materials."

The court also ordered the defendant to pay a separate GBP15victim surcharge, the proceeds of which will be spent on servicesfor victims and witnesses.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Opposition Pledges A$5.5MM for Abatement-------------------------------------------------------------If elected, the New South Wales Opposition has pledged to spendA$5.5 million to remediate the Woodsreef mine, an open-cutasbestos mine in Tamworth, New South Wales, Australia, ABC Newsreports.

In 1983, the mine ceased operation and has been described as anenvironmental disaster. It is the only known asbestos mine sitein New South Wales that has not been remediated.

Ombudsman Bruce Barbour released a report "Responding to theAsbestos Problem: The need for significant reform in NSW" in whichhe was scathing about the lack of action at the Woodsreef site.His report says friable asbestos is scattered across most of the400-hectare site.

Mr. Barbour is also worried about mounds of asbestos tailings ashigh as 75 meters as well as an eight-storey derelict buildingthat is contaminated. He noted that in 2009 the Department ofIndustry and Investment submitted an A$5.5 million proposal tocarry out preliminary remediation works on the mine site but theGovernment did not provide funding.

One of the recommendations Mr. Barbour makes in his report is thatthe money be allocated for the remediation works. The work wouldinvolve removing derelict buildings and equipment, closing apublic road which runs through the site and properly securing thearea to stop access.

On Nov. 17, 2010, Premier Kristina Keneally said she was giving"serious consideration" to the Ombudsman's concerns.

The Government estimates a complete remediation of the site wouldcost about A$100 million.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rolls-Royce Worker's Death Related to Exposure---------------------------------------------------------------The Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard that thedeath of Harry Rigby, an engineer who had worked for Rolls-Royce,was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraphreports.

Mr. Rigby recalled blowing asbestos dust from his overalls whileworking in the 1950s at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, England, beforehe moved to Derby.

In a statement, Mr. Rigby recalled seeing blue, white and brownasbestos in the air while he worked close to asbestos-laggedpipes. He started to feel breathless in early 2008, struggling totend to his garden and do odd jobs around the house.

Mr. Rigby was diagnosed with pleural plaques in October 2008 anddied last October 2009 at the age of 71 in the Royal DerbyHospital.

In 2008, as part of a successful compensation claim before hisdeath, Mr. Rigby was examined by respiratory physician Dr. DavidBaldwin.

Dr. Ivan Robinson, the pathologist who carried out Mr. Rigby'spost-mortem examination, said asbestos fiber in his lungs madethem more than twice the weight of normal, healthy lungs. He gavethe cause of death as pulmonary fibrosis.

Paul McCandless, assistant deputy coroner, returned a verdict thatMr. Rigby died as a result of industrial disease.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winchcombe Lorry Driver's Death Due to Exposure----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest heard that the death of Arthur Worthington, a retiredlorry driver from Winchcombe, England, who died at the age of 85,was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, this isGloucestershire reports.

Mr. Worthington died at Cheltenham General Hospital after beingdiagnosed with mesothelioma in early 2009. His son, BrianWorthington, said his father spent most of his life as a lorrydriver but had worked for a company called AG Curtis as a plumberearlier in his life.

At that job, Mr. Worthington had mixed up white powder to makelagging for pipes. He did not know it then, but it was almostcertainly asbestos, Mr. Worthington's son said.

Brian Worthington added, "He was admitted to Cheltenham hospitalon Dec. 29, 2009, and I went to visit him on Jan. 1, but I arrived20 minutes after he had died."

Mr. Worthington's GP, Dr. Tracy Jackson, said until 2008 he hadbeen a very fit man with an excellent quality of life.

Respiratory consultant, Dr. Ian Mortimore, said Mr. Worthingtonhad been admitted with a swelling in the leg which was thought tobe caused by a thrombosis. He said, "This later appeared not tobe thrombosis but part of the general debility arising from themesothelioma."

Gloucestershire coroner, Alan Crickmore, was told a postmortemexamination had shown the existence of plural plaques, which werea strong indicator of asbestos exposure.

Mr. Worthington's lungs showed a low count of asbestos fibers, butpathologist Dr. Keith McCarthy said this was in keeping with thedevelopment of mesothelioma.

Summing up, Mr. Crickmore said Mr. Worthington had been so illwhen he got to hospital he was unable to get out of bed. Herecorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.

According to the complaint, Mr. Tucker worked as a machinist matefor the U.S. Navy from 1962 until 1965, as a mechanic atThurston's Garage from 1965 until 1968, as a mechanic at EssoStation from 1968 until 1972, as a machinist at Walbar from 1967until 1968 and as a shadetree mechanic from the 1950s until the1970s.

In their six-count complaint, the Tuckers seek a judgment of morethan US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000,punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendantsfor their behavior and punitive and exemplary damages of more thanUS$100,000, plus other relief the court deems just.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riggleman Action Filed v. CSX in Kanawha---------------------------------------------------------Christa J. Pearce-Braithwaite, on behalf of her father CharlesWilliam Riggleman, on Nov. 3, 2010, filed a lawsuit involvingasbestos against CSX Transportation in Kanawha Circuit Court,W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Riggleman died of lung cancer. Mrs.Pearce-Braithwaite claims Mr. Riggleman was an employee of therailroad and contracted occupational diseases within the scope ofthat employment.

Mr. Riggleman was required to work with and near toxic and harmfuldust, including asbestos and materials containing asbestos, fumesand other products, according to the suit.

Mrs. Pearce-Braithwaite seeks compensatory damages. She is beingrepresented by James A. McKowen, Esq., and David P. Pavlik, Esq.

According to the complaint, Mr. Chenoweth was diagnosed with lungcancer on April 13, 2010 and died July 18, 2010.

Mrs. Chenoweth claims the defendants caused Mr. Chenoweth's lungcancer and death by exposing him to asbestos and asbestos fibersduring his career at Union Carbide Corporation from 1959 until1999. According to the suit, he also smoked one-half to one packof cigarettes per day from 1856 until 1983, but then quit.

Mrs. Chenoweth seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.She is being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Carrie L.Newton, Esq.

During the course of his employment with Union CarbideCorporation, Mr. Edwards was exposed to various types of asbestosproducts. He claims the 81 defendants manufactured, assembled,supplied, distributed and/or sold the products. He was diagnosedwith mesothelioma.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Allen County Bldg. to Cost Up to $2MM-----------------------------------------------------------------The cost of renovating the City-County Building in Fort Wayne,Allen County, Ind., could exceed estimates by US$1 million toUS$2 million, The News-Sentinel reports.

County Council has agreed to spend about US$3 million on theproject, but Larry Brown, Allen County Council member, said thecontainment, removal and replacement of asbestos could add "$1million to US$2 million" to the price.

The presence of asbestos in the nine-story building is hardly asecret. In 1996, for example, The News-Sentinel reported that theremoval of the hazardous material during renovations temporarilyforced some offices to move.

The previous year it was reported that the Indiana OccupationalHealth and Safety Administration had inspected the building aftertelephone crews discovered asbestos falling from a ceiling.

And the year before that, the state Department of Health hadtested the building's air and declared it asbestos-free afterother workers discovered the material.

Asbestos-related work could begin early in 2011 with renovationstarting in the spring.

According to the suit, on July 9, 2009, Mr. Taylor was diagnosedwith lung cancer. He was employed by Delta Construction, J.B.Stevens, CC Taylor & Son and J.A. Jones Construction Company from1955 until 2000, which caused him to be exposed to asbestosproducts of the defendants.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Behringer Harvard Posts $8.9MM ARO at Sept. 30---------------------------------------------------------------The balance of Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc.'s asset retirementobligations was about US$8.9 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, andUS$9.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

The Company records the fair value of any conditional assetretirement obligations if they can be reasonably estimated. Aspart of the anticipated renovation of acquired properties, theCompany will incur costs for the abatement of regulated materials,primarily asbestos-containing materials, as required underenvironmental regulations.

The Company's estimate of the fair value of the liabilities isbased on future anticipated costs to be incurred for the legalremoval or remediation of the regulated materials.

Description:The Company operates institutional quality real estate. As ofSept. 30, 2010, the Company owned interests in 70 officeproperties located in 23 states and the District of Columbia.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Accrues $2.1MM Obligations at Sept. 30----------------------------------------------------------------CoreSite Realty Corporation's accruals for estimated retirementobligations were about US$2.1 million at Sept. 30, 2010, andUS$1.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations.The asset retirement obligations relate primarily to the removalof asbestos and contaminated soil during development orredevelopment of the properties as well as the estimated equipmentremoval costs upon termination of a certain lease where theCompany is the lessee.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganizationunder Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing with respect toQuigley's amended plan of reorganization that concluded inDecember 2009. Briefing on the legal issues related to theconfirmation hearing concluded in February 2010.

In September 2010, the Bankruptcy Court declined to confirm theamended reorganization plan. The Company and Quigley are seekingto address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the amendedreorganization plan and currently intend to submit a revised planfor consideration by the court. There is no assurance that such arevised plan will be submitted or that, if submitted, it will beapproved by the Bankruptcy Court.

As a result, the Company has taken an additional charge for thismatter of US$701 million (pre-tax) in the third quarter of 2010.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Reserves $86MM for Claims at Oct. 2---------------------------------------------------------------RBS Global, Inc.'s long-term reserve for asbestos claims amountedto US$86 million as of both Oct. 2, 2010 and March 31, 2010,according to a Company press release dated Nov. 10, 2010.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was US$86million as of both Oct. 2, 2010 and March 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent companyof Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries serve the Company's two mainsegments: Process Motion Control and Water Management.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 876 Claims in W.Va. at Sept. 30----------------------------------------------------------------Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of claims alleging exposureto asbestos was 876 in West Virginia, nine in Pennsylvania and onein Illinois as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

The Company's total number of claims alleging exposure toasbestos, as of June 30, 2010, was 868 in West Virginia and eightin Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

The Distribution Companies - Monongahela Power Company, ThePotomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company - have beennamed as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, inpending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multipleplaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, saleor distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company.These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and arerelated to the installation and removal of asbestos-containingmaterials at the Company's generation facilities.

The Company's historical operations were insured by variousforeign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.Certain insurers have contested their obligations to pay for thefuture defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestossuits.

The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and/orenvironmental insurance-related actions:

The parties seek a declaration of coverage under the policies forasbestos-related and environmental claims.

Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is anintegrated energy business that owns and operates electricgeneration facilities primarily in Pennsylvania, West Virginia andMaryland. The Company manages its operations through two businesssegments: Merchant Generation and Regulated Operations.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Suits----------------------------------------------------------------Chemtura Corporation continues to be subject to claims andlitigation related to product liability claims, including claimsrelated to the Company's current products and asbestos-relatedclaims concerning premises and historic products of its corporateaffiliates and predecessors.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Remains Party to Sealed Air Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA continues to be subject tolitigation with Sealed Air Corporation to confirm entitlement toindemnification from Sealed Air for losses and expenses incurredby the Company on pre-Merger tax liabilities and Merger-relatedclaims.

The Company was originally formed as a result of a series oftransactions it completed under the Agreement and Plan ofReorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996, by and between W. R.Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE (Merger).

At the time of the Merger, a Grace subsidiary known as W. R. Grace& Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant liabilitiesarising out of product-liability related litigation (includingasbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claimsunrelated to National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC), which was Grace'sdialysis business prior to the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed toindemnify the Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities ofGrace, whether relating to events occurring before or after theMerger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC'soperations.

Grace and certain of its subsidiaries filed for reorganizationunder Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace andFMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of theGrace bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings,alleging that the Merger was a fraudulent conveyance, violated theuniform fraudulent transfer act and constituted a conspiracy.

All such cases have been stayed and transferred to or are pendingbefore the U.S. District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestoscreditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate andGrace in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedingsfor the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and tax claimsagainst it and other claims related to the Company that arise outof the bankruptcy of Grace.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended (SettlementAgreement), fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised onbehalf of asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice andthe Company will receive protection against existing and potentialfuture Grace related claims, including fraudulent conveyance andasbestos claims, and indemnification against income tax claimsrelated to the non-NMC members of the Grace consolidated tax groupupon confirmation of a Grace bankruptcy reorganization plan thatcontains such provisions.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay a total ofUS$115 million without interest to the Grace Bankruptcy estate, oras otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation. Noadmission of liability has been or will be made. The SettlementAgreement has been approved by the U.S. District Court.

Subsequent to the Merger, Grace was involved in a multi-steptransaction involving Sealed Air Corporation (f/k/a Grace Holding,Inc.).

Under the Settlement Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan thatsatisfies the conditions of the Company's payment obligation, thislitigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Headquartered in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG &Co. KGaA is a dialysis provider. Its staff treats about 190,000patients a year at some 2,500 dialysis clinics worldwide, 1,700 ofwhich are based in the United States.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------Claims are still pending against Westinghouse Air BrakeTechnologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) and certain of itsaffiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States bypersons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure toasbestos-containing products.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's whollyowned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC),and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that theCompany acquired any interest in RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, aresubmitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or tonon-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for theasbestos-containing products at issue.

To date, Wabtec has been able to successfully defend itself,including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all ofwhich confirmed Wabtec's position that it did not assume anyasbestos liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtecassets.

Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air BrakeTechnologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) provides equipment andservices for the global rail industry. In 2009, the Companyhad sales of about US$1.4 billion and net income of aboutUS$115.1 million.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Has Up to $20MM Coverage for A&E Claims--------------------------------------------------------------Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coveragefor certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 millionper occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate, accordingto the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some ofits properties, including ground water contamination and thepresence of asbestos containing materials. The Company has, inthe past, performed remediation of such environmental matters, andis not aware of any significant remaining potential liabilityrelating to these environmental matters.

The Company may be required in the future to perform testingrelating to these or other environmental matters.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Real Estate InvestmentTrust is an REIT that focuses on retail shopping malls and stripand power centers located in the eastern half of the UnitedStates, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. As of Sept. 30,2010, the Company's portfolio consisted of 49 properties in 13states.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp., Units Face 60 Actions at Sept. 30----------------------------------------------------------------Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 60 asbestos-relatedlawsuits as of June 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterlyreport filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

The Company and its subsidiaries faced 71 asbestos-relatedlawsuits as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3,2010)

The Company and its units: Union Electric Company (UE), CentralIllinois Public Service Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy GeneratingCompany (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) andIllinois Power Company (IP) have been named, along with numerousother parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffsclaiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Mostcases have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with asmany as 212 parties named in some pending cases and as few as twoin others. However, in the cases that were pending as of Sept.30, 2010, the average number of parties was 76.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO andIP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'activities at the Company's present or former electric generatingplants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plantsare now owned by AERG. Most of IP's plants were transferred to aformer parent subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP.

As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCOgenerating plants, CIPS and CILCO contractually agreed toindemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associatedwith asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to thetransfer.

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial,typically would be shared among the various defendants.

At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had US$11 million, UE hadUS$4 million, CIPS had US$1 million, Genco had none, CILCO hadUS$2 million and IP had US$4 million in liabilities recorded torepresent their best estimate of their obligations related toasbestos claims.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Ameren Corporation distributeselectricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost onemillion customers in Missouri and Illinois through utilitysubsidiaries. The Company has a generating capacity of more than16,500 MW. The Company also operates a nuclear power facility,three hydroelectric plants, and several turbine combustionfacilities.

The Company records a liability for a conditional asset retirementobligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an assetretirement activity in which the timing and/or method ofsettlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not bewithin a company's control, when the fair value of the obligationcan be reasonably estimated.

Depending on the age of the construction, certain properties inthe Company's portfolio may contain non-friable asbestos. Ifthese properties undergo major renovations or are demolished,certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify themanner in which the asbestos, if present, must be handled anddisposed.

Based on its evaluation of the physical condition and attributesof certain of its properties acquired in the Transactions, theCompany recorded conditional asset retirement obligations relatedto asbestos removal.

The accretion expense for the three and nine months endedSept. 30, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009 was not significant.

Description:The Company owns, acquires and operates primarily institutional-quality office properties principally in selected long-term growthmarkets in California and Hawaii. It operates as a real estateinvestment trust (REIT) for federal income tax purposes.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Still Party to Claims in Miss.---------------------------------------------------------------Since August 2004, Parker Drilling Company, particularly certainof its subsidiaries, faced several asbestos complaints in theCircuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundredpersons that allege that they were employed by some of the nameddefendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies thatare not affiliated with the Company, including companies thatallegedly manufactured drilling related products containingasbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and otherdrilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshoredrilling operations, land-based drilling operations and indrilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipmentand assert claims based on negligence and strict liability andclaims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs are entitled tomonetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints havebeen severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county inwhich the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause ofaction allegedly accrued. Subsequent to the filing of amendedcomplaints, the Company has joined with other co-defendants infiling motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffshave an employment relationship with which defendant, includingwhether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship withsubsidiaries of the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date,about 16 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of itsaffiliates as a defendant. One of the 16 plaintiffs' cases wastransferred to the federal multi-district litigation and wasadministratively dismissed.

Of the remaining cases, discovery is proceeding in groups of 60and none of the 15 plaintiff complaints naming the Company areincluded in the first 60 (Group I). Selection of Discovery GroupII was completed on April 21, 2008, and the Company was named inone suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earnedUS$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a companyParker Drilling acquired in 1996. No trial date has been set forthis plaintiff.

Headquartered in Houston, Parker Drilling Company providescontract drilling and drilling-related services based on extensiveexperience and expertise in drilling geologically difficult wellsand in managing the logistical and technological challenges ofoperating in remote, harsh and ecologically sensitive areas. AtSept. 30, 2010, its marketable rig fleet was comprised of 43 rigswhich operate in North and South America, North Africa, CentralAsia and Asia Pacific regions.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Continues to be Subject to Exposure Actions----------------------------------------------------------------MYR Group Inc. is still routinely subject to claims related to itscurrent services and operations, and asbestos-related claimsconcerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to theseclaims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event anyasbestos-related claim is not resolved in its favor.

The Company said that, at June 30, 2010, there were about 39asbestos lawsuits in which it is one of many defendants. (ClassAction Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits thatare incidental to the Company's operations in which the claimantsseek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personalinjury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure toasbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the statesof Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Headquartered in Baar, Switzerland, Noble Corporation is anoffshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. TheCompany performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62offshore drilling units located worldwide.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. STERIS Corp.---------------------------------------------------------------STERIS Corporation is, and is likely to continue to be involved ina number of legal proceedings, government investigations, andclaims that are asbestos-related.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company'squarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the Securities andExchange Commission.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire & Cable Faces Actions in 4 States---------------------------------------------------------------Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts ofMinnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Illinois alleging thatcertain electrical wire and cable which may have containedasbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to thiselectrical wire and cable.

These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seekunspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It isnot clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of theelectrical wire and cable in question or whether the Company, infact, distributed the electrical wire and cable alleged to havecaused any injuries.

The Company maintains general liability insurance that has appliedto these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claimshave been covered by the applicable insurance policies and alldefense of these claims has been handled by the applicableinsurance companies.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the electricalwire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on anywarranties from the manufacturers of such electrical wire andcable if it were determined that any of the electrical wire orcable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which causedinjury to any of these plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTELprovided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associatedwith these claims that the Company believes it could enforce ifits insurance coverage proves inadequate.

Headquartered in Houston, Houston Wire & Cable Company, throughits wholly owned subsidiaries, distributes wire and cable andrelated hardware to the U.S. industrial distribution marketthrough locations in 12 states throughout the United States. TheCompany has no other business activity.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Bucyrus Int'l.----------------------------------------------------------------Bucyrus International, Inc. has been named as a co-defendant innumerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due toexposure to asbestos and other substances, according to theCompany's quarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and hasvarious limits of liability depending on the insurance policy yearin question. At the time a liability associated with a casebecomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Companyaccrues for the liability by a charge to earnings.

Headquartered in South Milwaukee, Wis., Bucyrus International,Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets safe and high productivitymining equipment. The Company operates in two business segments:surface mining and underground mining.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Involved in Injury Actions---------------------------------------------------------------The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is still involved in numerous lawsuitsinvolving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one ofnumerous defendants, according to the Company's quarterly reportfiled on Nov. 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.